The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 12538,' ORDINANCE NO ~~,5~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35, WATER AND SEWERS, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH (1986), AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING EXHIBIT A, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-70.2(a); FURTHER, BY AMENDING EXHIBIT B, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35- 70.2(b), FURTHER, BY AMENDING SCHEDULE 1, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-70(a),FURTHER, BY AMENDING SCHEDULE 2, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-70.3(b), FURTHER, BY AMENDING EXHIBIT C, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-71(a), FURTHER., BY AMENDING EXHIBIT D, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-72(a), FURTHER, BY AMENDING EXHIBIT E, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35- 76(a), FURTHER, BY AMENDING EXHIBIT F, INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECTION 35-77(a), MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE OF PRIOR ORDINANCES AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS SECTION 1 Exhibit A, Land Use Assumptions for Water, incorporated by reference into Section 35-70.2(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto SECTION 2. j ' ~ ~__ Exhibit B, Land Use Assumptions for Wastewater, incorporated by reference into Section 35- 70.2(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto SECTION 3 Schedule 1, the Maximum Assessable Impact Fee per Service Umt, incorporated by reference into Section 35-70.3(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Schedule 1, attached hereto SECTION 4 Schedule 2, Collection Schhedule, incorporated by reference into Section 35-70.3(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Schedule 2, attached hereto SECTION 5 Exhibit C, Water Benefit Area, incorporated by reference into Section 35-71 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit C, attached hereto SECTION 6 Exhibit D, Water Capital Improvements Plan, incorporated by reference into Section 35-72 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto SECTION 7 Exhibit E, Wastewater Benefit Area, incorporated by reference into Section 35-76 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit E, attached hereto SECTION 8 Exhibit F, Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan, incorporated by reference into Section 35- 77 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Worth (1986), as amended, is hereby amended and, after having been so amended, shall be and read as shown on Exhibit F, attached hereto SECTION 9 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, m which event conflicting provisions of such ordinances and such Code are hereby repealed. SECTION 10 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 Crty Council without the incorporation m this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 11 This ordinance shall take effect and be m full force and effect from and after June 5, 1996 APPRO i S ~O FQRM AND LEGALITY /~j,-r City Attorney /~~ _ Date ~ 3~ l" 6 ADOPTED - .2 - 9 (, EFFECTIVE ___(Q ~ S - 9 tp SCHEDULE 1 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE METER EQUIVALENCY WATER WASTEWATER SIZE FACTOR IMPACT FEE IMPACT FEE 314" 1 00 $799 00 $1017 00 1" 1 67 $1334.33 $1698.39 1 1!2" 3.33 $2660 67 $3386 61 2" 5.33 $4258 67 $5420 61 3" 10 00 $7990 00 $10,170 00 4" 16 67 $13,319.33 $16,953 39 6" 33.33 $26,630 67 $33,896 61 8" 53.33 $42,610 67 $54,236 61 10" 76 67 $61,259 33 $77,973.39 SCHEDULE2 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE COLLECTION SCHEDULE METER EQUNALENCY WATER WASTEWATER SIZE FACTOR IMPACT FEE* IMPACT FEE* * 3/4" 1 00 $356 00 $580.20 1" 1 67 $594 52 $968 93 1 1/2" 3.33 $1185 48 $1932.07 2" 5.33 $1897 48 $3092.47 3" 10 00 $3560 00 $5802.00 4" 16 67 $5934 52 $9671 93 6" 33.33 $11,865 48 $19,338 07 8" 53.33 $18,985 48 $30,942.07 10" 76 67 $27,294.52 $44,483 93 * Water is 44 6% of the total maximum assessabl e amount. ** Wastewater is 57 1% of the total maximum as sessable amount. ATTACHMENT fi0 M&C G-114$9 TO Crty Council Members FROM. Capital Improvements Plan Advisory Committee DATE May 21, 1996 SUBJECT UPDATED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND ASSOCIATED IMPACT FEE In accordance with Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, the Fort Worth Crty Council appointed the Capital Improvements Plan Advisory Committee (CAC) on December 5, 1989, to assist and advise the Council m the consideration, adoption and updating of impact fees. Thzs report represents the recommendations of the CAC m fulfilling this charge. The state statute requires that the original impact fee ordinance and any amendments to rt be reviewed every three years and amended as necessary to reflect any changes m the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements plan and the Impact Fee Ordinance One of the duties of this five-person committee is to review the updated water and wastewater Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and the Impact Fee Ordinance and file a written recommendation to the City Council prior to the public hearing. The public hearing is scheduled for May 28, 1996 The Advisory Committee is composed of the following members Mr Carl Wilson--Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Mr Bob Madera--Building Community Mr Kelly Thompson-- Development Community Mr Aly Knox--Neighborhood Community Mrs. Walter B Barbour--Neighborhood Community The Committee met on December 15, 1995, March 7, 1996, March 28, 1996, and May 2, 1996, a summary of the key points discussed at each meeting is included as Attachment A. The Committee relied on our consultants (Carter & Burgess, Inc , and CH2MHi11) that the following information presented to us is accurate The proposed updated population and employment information for the planning period (1996- 2006) is based on the information provided by the Crty of Fort Worth Planning Department and the wholesale customers survey requests. Each wholesale customer has had the opportunity to revise their forecast after a review process. 2. The Capital Improvements Plan methodology for cost allocation is reasonable and only includes costs attributable to new development m the planning penod. 3 The equivalent meter unit is an appropriate measure for service unit determination and calculations of service units have been made accurately Pursuant to the consultant's recommendation, inactive meters were excluded from the service unit calculations, as these meters do not exert a demand on the system. Also, the equivalent meter factors were modified to conform with published data from the American Water Works Association. 4 The maximum potential impact fee, calculated by dividing the total capital improvements project cost by the total projected growth m the number of service amts, is $799 for water and $1,017 for wastewater The committee reports that the methodology is in accordance with the state statute and that the water and wastewater Capital Improvements Plan fairly represent the new facilities required to meet the growth based upon the updated Land Use Assumptions, and recommends adoption of the 1996 Capital Improvements Plan as presented to the City Council. The Committee will continue to review the impact fee process on asemi-annual basis. Carl C Wilson Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee cc Mr Bob Madera--Building Community Mr Kelly Thompson--Development Community Mr Aly Knox--Neighborhood Community Mrs. Walter B Barbour--Neighborhood Community File "ATTACHMENT A" SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1996 In accordance with the state statute requirement, a Capital Improvements Plan Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was held to review the semi-annual progress report on water and wastewater Capital Improvements Plans. During the meeting the CAC members were informed that every three years the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and the Impact Fee Ordinance are amended per state statute The Water Department had sent out Request for Proposal and had received three proposals. The Wholesale Customer Impact Fee Committee would review the proposals and make recommendations to the Water Director to select a consultant to conduct the study and make a presentation to the CAC MARCH 7, 1996 Mr Tommy O O'Brien of Carter & Burgess gave a brief overview of the state statute, Chapter 395, and discussed the updated water and wastewater Land Use Assumptions reports. He reviewed. the fact that the Land Use Assumptions report, the impact fee review and update process were based on State Law (Chapter 395, Subsection C) Also, there was a brief discussion regarding the City's water and wastewater service areas as projected for year 2006 and 2016 Mr O'Brien provided a review of how the population and employment data were gathered. The consultants made contact with all wholesale customers and received input from most of them. MARCH 28, 1996 Mr O'Brien presented a progress report of the updated draft Land Use Assumptions report that included updating population projections for the final draft report. The updated draft Capital Improvements Plan was discussed by Mr Brian Fuerst, CH2MHi11. His discussion on the Water Capital Improvements Plan included consideration for the four types of facilities. water treatment plants, pump stations, storage tanks, and engmeenng studies. The discussion on the Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan included consideration for wastewater treatment plants and engineering studies. Other discussion included the exclusions of pipelines and lift stations. The CAC members were informed that the recommended maximum assessable impact fee for 1996 is $800 for water and $1,112 for wastewater MAY 2, 1996 Mr Eric Rothstein of CH2M Hill discussed the legal requirements and the methodology the city must follow to update the water and wastewater Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and the Impact Fee Ordinance Mr Brian Fuerst informed the CAC that the population projections were revised due to more recent data being available, which reduced the water impact fee from $800 to $799 He also informed the CAC members that the wastewater impact fee was reduced from $1,112 to $1,017, due to revised population projections and methodology used to calculate per capita flow EXHIBIT A FINAL DRAFT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 April 16, 1996 FINAL DRAFT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 Prepared for: CITY OF FORT WORTH WATER DEPARTMENT Prepared by: CARTER AND BURGESS, INC. Consultants in Engineering, Architecture, Planning and the Environment 3880 Hulen Street Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (817) 735-6000 April 16, 1996 THESE DOGUf!~~E,~-TS A~;E FO~,c INTERIM REVlEV`J AND ARE NOT ;N T ENt~Ep FCR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR ~'E^h~ifT PURPOSES. TO~J1f\PY 0 O'~RfEN TEXAS P E. Np 47966 DATE. -! G ~.~ TABLE OF CONTENTS _~ Paae INTRODUCTION j ENABLING LEGISLATION 1 WATER SERVICE AREA 1 SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT 4 FIGURES: 1 -WATER SERVICE AREA. 3 TABLES: 1 -TOTAL EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR FORT WORTH AND WHOLESALE WATER CUSTOMERS 5 2 -WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY CITY OF FORT WORTH 7 3 - SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY THE CITY OF FORT WORTH WATER SYSTEM 8 APPENDIX• BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES ~ 0 WHOLESALE CUSTOMER SURVEY 12 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 INTRODUCTION This document contains the Land Use Assumptions for the City of Fort Worth water facilities. Information contained in this document will be used in the formulation of the Water Capital Improvements Plan, and ultimately for impact fees. The purpose of this document is to update the previous Land Use Assumptions for water facilities and the previous summaries of assumptions about population growth and employment, as adopted in the 1993 Ordinance for the 1993 to 2013 time period Population and employment projections will be addressed in this document fora 20- year period, from 1996 to 2016 ENABLING LEGISLATION Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 authorizes a political subdivision to impose impact fees on land within its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Apolitical subdivision may also contract to provide capita{ improvements to areas outside its city limits and ETJ, and may chacge an impact fee under the contract. In addition, the Local Government Code states that a politica! subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan every three years. The initial 3-year period begins on the day the Capital Improvements Plan is adopted. The City of Fort Worth adopted Ordinance No 11328 on June 1, 1993, entitled "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 -Water and Sewers -Establishing Water and Wastewater Impact Fees." Again, the purpose of this document is to update the land use assumptions and forecasts of population and employment prepared for the 1993 Ordinance WATER SERVICE AREA The City of Fort Worth Water Department (Water Department) provides service to retail and wholesale customers in what is known in this "Land Use Assumptions -Water Facilities - 1996-2016" document as the Water Service Area. The "Water Service Area" generally is defined in Chapters 395 and 35 of the referenced codes as the Water Benefit Area plus all the wholesale water customers. The Water Benefit Area includes the area within the City of Fort Worth city limits and its ETJ to which water service is either provided or could be provided on a retail basis. i The Water Service Area boundaries for the years 2006 and 2016 are shown on Figure 1 The Water Service Area boundaries are strategic planning boundaries that were generally defined by the City of Fort Worth 1989 Water Master Plan Study and have been refined and adjusted by the Water Department to meet predicted future demands. By City Charter, the City of Fort Worth Water Department provides retail water service to approximately 139,836 retail water accounts Retail accounts include a!I residences and businesses located within the City's current corporate limits. In addition, the City of Fort Worth Water Department is contracted to provide wholesale potable water service to twenty-six (26) wholesale water customers. Generally, the wholesale water customers are suburban communities lying either within or adjacent to the City of Fort Worth corporate limits The wholesale water customers that are served include all or parts of Benbrook Burleson DlFW International Airport Edgecliff Village Forest Hill Haslet Keller Lake Worth Richland Hills Sansom Park Tarrant County MUD #1 Trophy Club MUD #1 Westworth Village Bethesda Water Supply Corp Crowley Dalworthington Gardens Everman Haltom City Hurst Kennedafe North Richland Hills Saginaw Southlake Trinity River Authority (TRA) Westover Hills White Settlement Also serves Watagua. Existing and projected population and employment have been determined for the City of Fort Worth and each of the wholesale customers. Population and employment projections were based on the city limits of the City of Fort Worth and the wholesale customers. Table 1 includes the total existing and projected population and employment data for the City of Fort Worth and these wholesale customers for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 Table 2 provides the actual percentage and number of persons served in 1996, and the projected percentage and number of persons to be served by the City of Fort Worth for the years 2006 and 2016 The methods used to determine the information set forth in Tables 1 and 2 are expanded on in the following sections 2 Water Service Area o n • o ~ ~a.~ awrrwr..arra w.w ~ ~iAFM-~BYt~Ofi Fort Worth, Texas ,",__,,._. U1/1p/% DGMsQ~~~oD\961029~C Iv~v~tomco ~. en< ;.. •••" YEAR 1A06 WATER SERVICE AREA YEAR 2016 WATER SERVICE AREA INDIRECT WHOLESALE CUSTOMER (WATAUGA) CITIES NOT INCLUDED IN SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Total Population and Employment Within the Water Service Area It is necessary to analyze the Water Service Area population and employment data in order to more fully understand the City's current and potential future water service requirements. This portion of the document presents land use assumptions, which consist of populations and employment projections, for the Water Service Area for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 These assumptions, which are considered as a fair and equal basis for distribution of capital costs, will be the basis for development of a capital improvements plan and the resulting impact fee for water facilities within the City of Fort Worth. For this "Land Use Assumptions -Water Facilities - 1996 to 2016" document, population and employment forecasts developed for the City of Fort Worth Water Service Area are based largely on survey information provided by the Fort Worth Water Department wholesale customers, the City of Fort Worth, and interpolated data from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) (A copy of the surrey is included at the end of the Appendix.) Population and employment projections provided by wholesale customers were compared to information provided by the NCTCOG to assure consistency in projection outcomes. In the event that sufficient projection information was not provided, population and employment forecasts were determined by interpolation of NCTCOG data. 'The summary of total wholesale customer forecasted population and employment for Fort Worth and wholesale customers for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 is shown on Table 1 Methodology used to prepare the demographics for the Fort Worth Water/ Wastewater Service Area is described more fully in the "Appendiix "attached. Percent of Total Population and Employment Served Within the Water Service Area Forecasting total population is important in establishing total future water service requirements by a political subdivision. In addition, it is necessary to calculate the total population and employment to be served by Fort Worth to more accurately reflect the future needs of wholesale customers and demands on the Fort Worth water system Table 2 provides the number of persons served in 1996, and to be served for the years 2006 and 2016 Table 2 also shows the percent of the total population served or to be served by the City of Fort Worth. The percentage of the total population and employment of each wholesale customer to be served by the City of Fort Worth was calculated by dividing the total water purchased from the City of Fort Worth by the total water used by the wholesale customer In addition, an estimated percentage of the total population and employment to be served by the City of Fort Worth in 2006 and 2016 was provided in the wholesale customers' survey information. Wholesale Customer BENBROOK BETHESDA (1) BURLESON CROWLEY D/FW AIRPORT DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS EDGECLIFF VILLAGE EVERMAN FOREST HILL FORT WORTH HALTOM CITY HASLET HURST KELLER KENNEDALE LAKE WORTH N. RICHLAND HILLS RICHLAND HILLS SAGINAW SANSOM PARK SOUTHLAKE T.C. MUD #1 TRA GRAND PRAIRIE (2) TROPHY CLUB WATAUGA WESTOVER HILLS WESTWORTH VILLAGE WHITE SETTLEMENT TABLE 1 TOTAL EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR FORT WORTH AND WHOLESALE WATER CUSTOMERS POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1996 a 2006 2016 1996 2006 2016 20,197 29,132 35.112 3,510 5,826 7,022 19,260 25,260 31,260 - - - 17,991 21,500 24,690 8,624 10,329 11,775 7,000 9,200 12,000 * 1,660 * 1,760 1,860 0 0 0 40,900 51,930 62,959 2,117* 4,033* 5,000* 995 * 1,570 * 1,800' 2,757 2,931 * 3,102* 410 660 935* 5,800 6,500 7,000 600 650 700 14,000 14,850 16,000 400 415 520 471,149 504,006* 535,280* 370,155 449,580* 533,250* 36,251 * 39,280* 41,997* 11,075 1 13,200 1 15,730* 860 2,190 I 4,977 I 100 1,240 3,954 35,980 36,244*) 36,770*j 17,485* 20,710*j 24,130* 18,813* 27,3401 36,210* 2,0251 3,900* 6,300* 5,100 9,000 I 12,000 1,300 I 1,550 1,700 5,072 5,1431 5,259* 1,475 1,600 * 1,725* 51,714 * 65,669 * 77,2201 11,510 13,860 * 16,840 1 8,187* 9,446* 10,100* 5,305*� 5,980* 6,760 9,300 14,021 17,000 3,300 4,300 5,300 3,950 3,950 3,950 650* 650* 650* 14,430 22,944* 31,810 5,295 * 8,370 * 13,050 ' 5,000 6,500 8,450 50 150 300 5,435 5,435 5,435 2,717 2,717 2,717 5,000 7,500 11,500 3,500 7,500 11,000 21,275* 23,114*� 24,960* 1,260*j 1,360* 1,520* 672 I 690 I 705 19 i 19 I 19 2,350 3,500 4,000 402 *I 622 776' 15,500 15,800 16,100 3,700 I 4,100 4,600 805,160 I 915,178 I 1,017,887 I 498,422 I 614,548 737,892 * Forecast Assistance by Consultant Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. 1 Population based on number of meters at 3.2 persons per meter Employment is included in population forecast. 2. Population and employment based on factor of historical average day water provided by Fort Worth divided by historical total water consumed times total population/employment for 1996. Water provided by Fort Worth to remain constant throughout planning period. Final Draft 5 An example of the calculation and wholesale customer survey data used is as follows A. Water Supplied by City of Fort Worth to the City of Crowley 674.496 apd (from wholesale customer survey) B. Total Water Usage of the City of Crowley 781,144 qpd {from wholesale customer survey) C Percent of People Served by Fort Worth's Water in the City of Crowley 86 (AB =C) (on table 2) Table 3 summarizes the total and projected population and employment served by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1996, 2006, and 2016 The 1996 population served by the City of Fort Worth water system is estimated to be 717,729 It is anticipated that by the year 2006 the Fort Worth water system will be serving 809,240 people and by the year 2016 it will increase to serve 899,905 people The current (1996) employment population served by Fort Worth is estimated to be 453,237 Employment population in 2006 is forecasted to be 552,704 and increase to 664,888 by the year 2016 TABLE 2 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY CITY OF FORT WORTH Wholesale Customer % SERVED % SERVED POPULATION 1996 2006 2016 1996 2006 2016 BENBROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 BETHESDA 8 40 50 1,541 10,104 15,630 BURLESON 98 100 100 17,631 21,500 24,690 CROWLEY 86 100 100 6,020 9,200 12,000 DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS 63 55 57 1,334 2,218 2,850 D/FW AIRPORT 40 33 33 0 0 0 EDGECLIFF VILLAGE 100 100 100 2,757 2,931 3,102 EVERMAN 291 29 291 1,682 1,885 2,030 FOREST HILL 1001 100 1001 14,000 1 14,850 16,000 HALTOM CITY 100 100 100 36,251 39,280 41,997 HASLET 7 25 45 60 548 2,240 HURST 90 86 86 32,382 31,170 1 31,622 KELLER 98 98 98 18,437 26,793 1 35,485 KENNEDALE 0 0 10 0 0 1 1,200 LAKE WORTH 56 56 80 2,840 2,880 4,207 N. RICHLAND HILLS 76 75 75 39,303 49,252 1 57,915 RICHLAND HILLS 66 70 70 5,403 6,612 7,070 SAGINAW 93 100 100 8,649 I 14,021 17,000 SANSOM PARK 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOUTHLAKE 100 100 100 14,430 j 22,944 31,810 T.C. MUD #1 95 90 90 4,750 I 5,850 7,605 TRA GRAND PRAIRIE * 100 100 100 5,435 I 5,435 5,435 TROPHY CLUB 61 70 80 3,050 I 5,250 1 9,200 WATAUGA 76 75 75 16,169 I 17.335 1 18,720 WESTOVER HILLS 100 100 100 672 690 ! 705 WESTWORTH VILLAGE 100 100 100 2,350 3,500 4,000 WHITE SETTLEMENT 42 35 40 6,510 ! 5,530 f6,440 TOTALS 241,656 299,778 358,953 *% Served = % of population and employment to which the City of Fort Worth provides water service. Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. EMPLOYMENT 1996 2006 2016 0 0 0 8,452 1,428 627 16,360 410 174 400 11,075 7 15,737 1,985 0 826 8,748 3,501 3,069 0 5.295 48 2,717 2,135 958 19 402 1,554 85,927 10,329 1,760 864 17,137 660 189 415 13,200 310 17,810 3,822 0 896 10,395 4,186 4,300 0 8,370 135 2,717 5,250 1,020 19 622 1,435 105,841 11,775 1,860 1,026 20,777 935 203 520 15,730 1,779 20,752 6,174 170 1,380 12,630 4,732 5,300 0 13,050 270 2,717 8,800 1,140 19 776 1,840 134,355 7 Final Draft TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY CITY OF FORT WORTH WATER SYSTEM POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1996 2006 2016 1996 2006 2016 FORT WORTH 471,149 504,006 535 280 370 155 449 580 533 250 See Table 1 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS 241 656 299,778 358,953 85 927 105 841 134 355 (See Table 2) TOTAL POPULATION SERVED 712,805 803,784 894,233 456,082 555,421 667,605 Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. Final Draft APPENDIX BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES APPENDIX BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES BACKGROUND Population and employment forecasts developed for the City of Fort Worth Water Service Area are based on information provided by the records of the City of Fort Worth Water Department wholesale customers, the City of Fort Worth, and data from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Population and employment forecasts are based on the city limits of Fort Worth and the wholesale customers. METHODOLOGY It is necessary to analyze the Water Service Area population and employment data to understand the City of Fort Worth's current (1996) and future water service requirements. Letter surveys were sent to each wholesale customer to provide information on current land use, population, and employment. 1n addition, each wholesale customer was requested to provide forecasts of community population and employment for the years 2006 and 2016 (A copy of the survey is enclosed at the end of this Appendix.) The population and employment projections provided by the wholesale customers were compared with data prepared by the NCTCOG and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) In the event that there was a substantial discrepancy between wholesale customer and NCTCOG or TWDB forecasts, the customer was contacted to discuss the discrepancy and to establish appropriate figures. In summary, wholesale customer projections were compared to 1) NCTGOG projections for the years 2010 and 2020, 2) Interpolated NCTCOG projections for 2006 and 2016, and 3) TWDB projections for 1990 to 2020 (in 5-year increments) Some of the wholesale customers and the City of Fort Worth were unable to provide population and/or employment forecasts for the target forecast years of 2006 and 2016 Population forecasts for those wholesale customer cities were determined by interpolating between the 1996 population data provided by the wholesale customers and NCTCOG forecasts for the years 2010 and 2020 The following explains this process A population figure for 2006 was obtained by interpolating between the wholesale customer's 1996 population and the NCTCOG 2010 population forecast to determine agrowth-per-year growth constant. The growth constant was then used to io determine the increase in population from 1996 to 2006 and project the year 2006 population A population figure for 2016 was obtained by determining a growth constant between NCTCOG 2010 and 2020 population forecasts. This growth constant was used to determine the increase in population from 2006 to 2016 and project the year 2016 population In instances where a 2020 forecasted population was not available, a growth constant was developed for the years between 1996 and 2010 to then forecast a population for 2016 Some of the wholesale customers were unable to provide a 1996 population Data available from NCTCOG were used to determine a 1996 population for these wholesale customers. Employment forecasts for the years 2006 and 2016 were determined in the same manner as population forecasts. However, many of the wholesale customers did not have a 1996 employment estimate In these cases, employment figures from the 1990 Census and NCTCOG 2010 employment forecast were used to determine a growth constant. This growth constant was used to determine a 1996 employment estimate RESOURCES 1990 Census Population and Housing Characteristics. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972 North Central Texas Council of Governments. DallaslFort Worth Economic Outlook Recent Trends and Long-Range Forecasts to the Year 20i0~ Regional Data Center, February 1989 North Central Texas Council of Governments. North Central Texas 1994 Demographic Forecasts: Research and Information Services, Fali 1994 North Central Texas Council of Governments. North Central Texas 1994 Demographic Forecasts. 2020 Extension Research and Information Services, Winter 1996 North Central Texas Council of Governments. 1995 Current Population Estimates: Research Information Services, Apri{ 1995 Texas Water Development Board Water for Texas -Today and Tomorrow A Consensus -Based Update to the Texas Water Plan- January 1996 ii WHOLESALE CUSTOMER SURVEY 12 January 10, 1996 Reference: Fort Worth Water Department Impact Fee Ordinance Update Dear . In accordance with Section 395.052 of the 'Chapter 395 Financing Capital Improvemerrts Required by new Developments in Municipalities; Counties and Certain Other Local Governments' of Texas State Statutes and applicable sections of the Fort Worth Water and Wastewater Contract with you, we are initiating the updating of the present Land Use Assumptions and Impact Fee Ordinance which was adopted on June 6, 1990 and revised on June 6, 1993. The City of Fort Worth Water Department will be using the NCTCOG population forecasts for its 16 County Region as a basis in the calculation of number of service units in the Fort Worth Water/Wastewater benefrt area We are soliciting our wholesale customers help in our preliminary analysis of water usage and wastewater discharge rates to compare to the NCTCOG population forecasts. In this regard, we have a series of questions related to a) your present total water sales and b.) any significant change in number of water customers since 1993 that would have an effect upon eRher your municipalities future water usage or wastewater discharge to the City of Fort Worth system. Your help in this request will greatly benefit our updating activities, plus your help will provide a more accurate assessment of the present and future land use assumptions regarding your City. Our questions are as follows: 1 a Water Resources Total water purchased from the City of Fort Worth mg 1993 mg 1994 mg 1995 1 b. Total water usage by your City in mg 1993 mg 1994 mg 1995 January 10, 1996 Page 2 2. Water Resources (Future). Estimated percentage of total water usage by your City and which is purchased. % 2006 °,6 2016 3a. Number of residential water meters at present (no flag meters or fire line meters). 3/4' 4' 1' 6' 1 1 /2' 8' 2' 10' 3' 3b. Number of non-residential water meters at presets (no flag meters or fire line meters). 3/4' -< 4' 1' 6' 1 1 /2' 8' 2' 10' 3' 4a. Historical annual water used (mg) by residential customers in the last six years. 1990 1993 1991 1994 1992 1995 4b. Historical annual water used (mg) by non-residential customers in the last six years. 1990 1993 1991 1994 1992 1995 5a. Monthly total water use by residential for the last 2 years. 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Od Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec January 10, 1996 Page 3 5b. Monthly total water use by non-residential for the last 2 years. 1994 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6. Current number of wastewater residential customers. 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Residential Non-Residential 7 Historical annual wastewater discharge into Fort Worth system for the last 5 years. Residential (gal) Non-Residential (gal) 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 8. Do you have a City Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Yes No If you answer is Yes, would you make a copy available ro the City of Fort Worth Water Department? 9. Has your City had a significant (5°~ or more) change in population since the following dates? 1990 yes no 1993 yes no !f you answered yes ro either of the above please indicate the percentage of change. 10. Has there been a major addition, or deletion, of a high volume water user (i.e., a new industry, the closing of a major retail land use) or the addition of a high volume mufti-family land use to your City since the following dates? (High volume user meaning that the subject water use is noticeable in the Citys monthly water sales records.) 1990 yes no 1993 yes no If your answer is yes, is the Land use residential ornon-residential ? January i0, 1996 Page 4 11 12. 13. Best estimate of acres of use in your City for the following is: Low density (0-4 units/ac) residential Medium density (5-8 units jac) residential High density (9 un'ds +) residential acres acres acres Commercial industrial - (warehousing) (heavy) Vacant Land acres acres acres acres Has there been a change of number acres of the above listed land use since 1993? No Yes, more acres of: Medium density residential High density residential Commercial Heavy Industrial Any of the land uses in question 12 major wastewater customers? Yes No 14. Other Data. 15. Are there any ordinances concerning water and wastewater impact fees within your commun'~/i' Yes ! No If yes, please include a copy of your ordinance when mailing this questionnaire back to the Cily of Fort Worth Water Department. What is your forecast of community population? Residential Employment 1995 2006 2016 Due to the nature of our expedited schedule your response to the questions is needed by February 12, 1996. Carter & Burgess, Inc. with CH2M Hill, is under contract for the preparation of the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance preparation. The schedule for the preparation of the Ordinance will be provided to each wholesale customer during the next few weeks. Each wholesale customer will be continually advised as to the Ordinance updating progress through monthly newsletters to you, Water and Wastewater System Advisory Committee and Customer Impact Fee Committee (CIFC) meetings. January 10, 1996 Page 5 Should you have any questions related to the information we are requesting, don't hesitate to call Mr Tommy O'Brien, P.E. of Carter & Burgess, Inc., at (817) 735-7131 Again, thank you for your help in the updating of the Land Use Assumptions in that we can be more accurate in our impact fee calculations. Sincerely, Lee C. Bradley, Jr., P.E. Water Director TOO/LB/rb 953100.L11 cc: Correspondence Mail Responses to: Mr S. Frank Crumb, P.E. City of FoR Worth Water Department P O. Box 870 1000 ThrockmoRon Street Fort Worth, Texas 76101-0870 EXHIBIT B FINAL DRAFT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WASTEWATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 April 16, 1996 FINAL DRAFT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WASTEWATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 Prepared for: CITY OF FORT WORTH WATER DEPARTMENT Prepared by: CARTER AND BURGESS, INC. Consultants in Engineering, Architecture, Planning and the Environment 3880 Hulen Street Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (817) 735-6000 April 16, 1996 THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INTER1PJl REVIEV'J AND ARE NOT LNTENDE.D FOR CONSTRUCTION, I . BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. ~~~ TOMMY 0. O'BRiEN TEXAS P E. N0. 47966 DATE: ~- I ~'' g~ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ENABLING LEGISLATION EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FIGURES: 1 -WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA TABLES: Pa e 1 1 2 2 3 4 1- TOTAL EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR FORT WORTH AND WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS 6 2 -WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY VILLAGE CREEK WWTP 7 3 -SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY VILLAGE CREEK WWTP g APPENDIX. BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES 10 WHOLESALE CUSTOMER SURVEY 13 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WASTEWATER FACILITIES 1996-2016 INTRODUCTION ' This document contains the Land Use Assumptions for the City of Fort Worth wastewater facilities. Information contained in this document will be used in the formulation of the Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan, and ultimately for impact fees. The purpose of this document is to update the previous Land 'Use Assumptions for wastewater facilities and the summaries of assumptions about population growth and employment, as adopted in the 1993 Ordinance for the 1996 to 2016 time period Population and employment projections will be addressed in this document fora 20- year period, from 1996 to 2016 ENABLING LEGISLATION Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 authorizes a political subdivision to impose impact fees on land within its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) Apolitical subdivision may also contract to provide capital improvements to areas outside its city limits and ETJ, and may charge an impact fee under the contract. In addition, the Local Government Code states that a political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan every three years. The initial 3-year period begins on the day the Capital Improvements Plan is adopted The City of Fort Worth adopted Ordinance No 11328 on June 1, 1993, entitled "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 -Water and Sewers -Establishing Water and ~~ Wastewater Impact Fees. Again, the purpose of this document Hs to update the land use assumptions and forecasts of population and employment prepared for the 1993 Ordinance i EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM The City of Fort Worth's existing wastewater system consists of a collection system network and a single treatment facility, the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) In addition, the Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA) provides treatment facilities serving the far eastern and northern edge of Fort Worth. As indicated in Figure 1, the small area at the far eastern edge of the City of Fort Worth (Centreport Area, Post Oak Village, and Mosier Valley) is within the TRA wastewater service area. Also, portions of the area in northern Fort Worth, which cannot be served by gravity sewers to the Village Creek WWTP, will be served under contract by the TRA. The northern area in question drains into two different TRA sewersheds Big Bear Creek and Denton Creek. A portion of the area in the Big Bear Creek sewershed will be served by TRA's Big Bear Creek Interceptor Future Fort Worth sewers will connect to the new TRA interceptor near the town of Keller Treatment will be provided at TRA's existing Central Regional WWTP The area of Fort Worth north of the Big Bear Creek system is in TRA's Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System service -area. The Fort Worth sewers connect to the TRA Henrietta Creek and Cade Branch Interceptors and to a trunk extending to Alliance Airport. Treatment is provided at the Denton Creek Regional WWTP WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA The City of Fort Worth Water Department (Water Department) provides service to retail and wholesale customers in what is known in this "Land Use Assumptions - Wastewater Facilities - 1996-2016" document as the Wastewater Service Area. The "Wastewater Service Area" is generally defined in Chapters 395 and 35 of the referenced codes as the Wastewater Benefit Area plus all the wholesale wastewater customers. The Wastewater Benefit Area includes the area within the City of Fort Worth city limits and its ETJ to which wastewater service is either provided or could be provided on a retail basis. The Wastewater Service Area boundaries for the years 2006 and 2016 are shown on Figure 1 The Wastewater Service Area boundaries are strategic planning boundaries that were generally defined by the 1989 Water Master Plan Study and have been refined and adjusted by the City of Fort Worth to meet predicted future demands Included within the Wastewater Service Area are the areas served by the TRA, and twenty-three (23) wholesale customers, all or parts of which are served by the Fort Worth Wastewater System Pursuant to contracts, the City of Fort Worth provides each wholesale customer with wastewater services at the Fort Worth city limits Note that the service provided to the City of Arlington will, per the contract, expire prior to 2006 The current wholesale customers are Arlington'` Blue Mound Crowley Everman Haltom City Kennedale North Richland Hills "'` Richland Hills Saginaw Tarrant County MUD #1 Westworth Village Westover Hills Benbrook Burleson Edgecliff Village Forest H i I I Hurst "''** Lake Worth Pantego River Oaks Sansom Park TRA -Walker-Calloway "** White Settlement Also serves Dalworthington Gardens. *" Also serves Watauga. *** Three party contract serves a portion of North Richland Hills and Hurst. **** Also serves portion of Bedford. Existing and projected population and employment have been determined for each of the wholesale customers. Population and employment projections were based on the city limits of the City of Fort Worth and the wholesale customers. Table 1 includes the total existing and projected population and employment data far the City of Fort Worth and the noted wholesale customers for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 Table 2 provides existing and projected population and employment to be served by the Village Creek WWTP The methods used to determine the information set forth in Tables 1 and 2 are expanded on in the following sections. SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Total Population and Employment Within the Wastewater Service Area It is necessary to analyze the Wastewater Service Area population and employment data in order to more fully understand the City's current and potential future wastewater service requirements This portion of the document presents land use assumptions, which consists of populations and employment projections, for the Wastewater Service Area for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 These assumptions, which are considered as a fair and equal basis for distribution of capital costs, will be the basis for development of a capital improvements plan and the resulting impact fee for wastewater facilities within the City of Fort Worth. For this "Land Use Assumptions -Wastewater Facilities - 1996 to 2016" document, population and employment forecasts developed for the City of Fort Worth Wastewater a xc.Hlr~, tfY VCW4VTP ----•.. _••.••• .••••'' YEAR 2005 wASrEwATER SERVICE AREA ri ~aR zo~b wASTSwATER sERVrcE A~ INDrnECr wxol,ESAI~ cvsro~R ((BgEDFORD, DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS, WATAUGA) CI'TiES NOT INCLUDED IN SERVICE AREA BYRT~WORTH AREA WASTEWATER TREATED Wastewater Servic e Area ~- . ~~.~ Fort Worth, Texas ,,..~...~..~4.~.... ~ a~.~a ss oeu.a~~~ee~sciozs<i.. w+o~,coi. ,ni ~ti.'B~Oii Service Area are based largely on survey information provided by the Fort Worth Water Department wholesale customers, the City of Fort Worth, and interpolated data from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) (A copy of the survey is included at the end of the Appendix.) Population and employment projections provided by wholesale customers were compared to information provided by the NCTCOG to assure consistency in projection outcomes In the event that sufficient projection information was not provided, population and employment forecasts were determined by interpolation of NCTCOG data. The summary of total wholesale customer forecasted population and employment for Fort Worth and wholesale customers for the years 1996, 2006, and 2016 is shown on Table 1 Methodology used to prepare the demographics for the Fort Worth Water/ Wastewater Service Area is described more fully in the "Appendix "attached:. Several of the wholesale customer cities, along with the City of Fort Worth, have populations that are served by TRA. Only areas that are served by the Village Greek WWTP are included in the estimates of projected population shown in Table 2 for wholesale customer cities, and in Table 3 for the City of Fort Worth. Furthermore, a portion of the west side of the City of Arlington falls in the service area of the Village Creek WWTP This portion of the City of Arlington has,. by contract with the City of Fort Worth, been served by the Village Creek WWTP The existing contract between the two cities expires in February 2001 Fort Worth notified Arlington in 1989 of its intent to terminate service at the conclusion of the contract. At this time it is not known how service to that area of Arlington will be provided. Therefore, Table 2 shows a service area population for the City of Arlington which is the projected population that will be served by the Village Creek WWTP in 2001, prior to the time of expiration of the existing contract. This is done to ensure that adequate wastewater capital facilities are in place to serve that population until the year 2001 Population and Employment Served by Village Creek WWTP Table 3 summarizes the total and projected population and employment served by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1996, 2006, and 2016 The current (1996) population in the Village Creek WWTP service area is estimated to be 809,551 It is estimated that by the year 2006, the Village Creek WWTP will serve a population of 787,253, and by the year 2016 the population will be an estimated 849,251 The current (1996) employment in the Village Creek WWTP service area is estimated to be 431,060 It is estimated that by the year 2006, the Village Creek WWTP wilt serve an employment number of 494,060 and by the year 2016 the employment numbers served will be an estimated 578,659 It is important to note that approximately 10,000 people are served by private or individual disposal systems, but are in the City of Fort Worth Wastewater Service Area. These people are not included in the Village Creek WWTP ,populations. Those persons on private systems are generally located in newly annexed areas and have not yet had wastewater service extended to the area, such as the Oak Grove area. TABLE 1 TOTAL EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR FORT WORTH AND WHOLESALE WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS Wholesale Customer ARLINGTON BENBROOK BLUE MOUND BURLESON CROWLEY DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS I EDGECLIFF VILLAGE EVERMAN FOREST HILL FORT WORTH HALTOM CITY HURST (1) KENNEDALE LAKE WORTH N. RICHLAND HILLS (1) PANTEGO RICHLAND HILLS RIVER OAKS SAGINAW SANSOM PARK T.C. MUD #1 WATAUGA WESTOVER HILLS WESTWORTH VILLAGE WHITE SETTLEMENT TOTALS 21,275* 672 2,350 15,500 I 1,036,576 I 1996 283,514* 20,197 2,350 17,991 7,000 2,117* 2,757 5,800 14,000 471,149 I 36,251 *l 35,980 1 5,100 5,072 51,714* 2,350 8,1871 7,000 I 9,300 I 3,950 I POPULATION 2006 29,132 2,400* 21,500 9,200 4,033* 2,931* 6,500 14,850 504,006* 39,280* 36,244* 9,000 5,143* 65,669* 2,500 9,446* 7,000 14,021 3,950 5,000 I 6,500 23,114* 690 3,500 15,800 I 836,409 2016 1996 98,930* 35,112 3,510 2,800* 315* 24,690 8,624 12,000 1, 660* 5,000* 995* 3,102* 410* 7,000 600 16,000 400 I 535,280*1 370,1551 41,997*I 11,075*j 36,7701 17,485 12,000 I 1,300 5,259* 1,475* 77,220* 11,510 * 2,650 1,407 10,100* 5,305*I 7,000 1,440* 17,000_ I 3,300 3,950 6501 8,450 I 50 24,960*I 1,260' 705 19 4,000 402* 16,100 3,700 909,145 545,977 I EMPLOYMENT 2006 * Forecast Assistance by Consultant Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. 1 Population served by Village Creek WWTP through TRA, indicated in Table 2. 5,826 340* 10,329 1,760* 1,570* 660* 650 415 449,580*I 13,200* 20,710 1,550 1, 600* 13,860*I 1,8311 5,980*I 1,840* 4,300 650* 150 1,360* 19 622* 4,100 542,902 I 2016 7,022 365* 11,775 1,860* 1,800* 935* 700 520 533,250* 15,730* 24,130' 1,700 1,725* 16,840* 2,252* 6,760* 2,180* 5,300 650* 300 1,520* 19 776* 4,600 642,709 6 TABLE 2 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY VILLAGE CREEK WWTP RESIDENTIAL 1996 I 2006 93,560 20,197 2,350 17,991 7,000 1,905* 2,757 5,800 14,000 36,251 * 22,388* 5,100 I 5,072 I 33,7281 2,350 8,187 7,000 9,300 3,950 5,000 22,4351 21,2751 672 I 2,350 I 15,500 I 366,118 I Wholesale Customer ARLINGTON (1) BENBROOK BLUE MOUND BURLESON CROWLEY DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS (2) EDGECLIFF VILLAGE EVERMAN FOREST HILL HALTOM CITY HURST (2) (3) KENNEDALE LAKE WORTH N. RICHLAND HILLS (2) PANTEGO RICHLAND HILLS RIVER OAKS SAGINAW SANSOM PARK T.C. MUD #1 TRA WALKER-CALLOWAY WATAUGA WESTOVER HILLS WESTWORTH VILLAGE WHITE SETTLEMENT TOTALS * Forecast Assistance by Consultant Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. 1 Population projected to the year 2001 Service contract expires in 2001 2. Population served by Village Creek WWTP/TRA provided by wholesale customer information. 3 Hurst serves a small portion of Bedford. However, Bedford is not a wholesale customer and populations for Bedford are not included in population/employment forecasts for Hurst. 29,132 2,400* 21,500 9,200 3,629* 2,931 * 6,500 14,850 39,280 22,551 9,000 I 5,1431 37,9151 2,500 I 9,4461 7,000 I 14,021 I 3,950 I 6,500 I 23,9121 23,1141 690 I 3,500 I 15,800 I 314,464 I EMPLOYMENT 2016 1996 2006 15,037 * 35,112 3,510 2,800* 315* 24,690 8,624 12,000 1,660* 4,500* 995* 3,102* 410* 7,000 600 16,000 400 41,997* 11,075* 22,879* 11,657* 12,000 1,300 5,259 1 1,475 *" 41,380 1 7,674* 2,650 I 1,407* 10,1001 5,3051 7,000 I 1,440 *1 171000 I 3,300 I 3,950 I 6501 8,450 I 50 I 25,2301 9,6641 24,9601 1,2601 7051 191 4,000 I 4021 16,100 I 3,700 I 348,864 I 91,929 I 5,826 340* 10,329 1,760* 1,570* 660* 650 415 13,200* 6,903 * 1,550 1,6001 4,150 1,831*1 5,980 *1 1,8401 4,300 I 6501 150 I 22,1071 1,3601 19 I 6221 4,100 91,912 2016 7,022 365* 11,775 1,860* 1,800' 935* 700 520 15,730* 8,043 * 1,700 1,725 * 4,5474 2,252. 6,760* 2,180* 5,300 650* 300 25,182* 1,520* 19 776* 4,600 106,261 7 Final Draft TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SERVED BY VILLAGE CREEK WWTP POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1996 2006 2016 1996 2006 2016 FORT WORTH 452 363* 478 908* 506,7.39* 343 652* 406,874* 475 690* See Table 1 WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS 366,118 314,464** 348,864** 91,929 91,912** 106,261** (See Table 2) TOTAL POPULATION SERVED 818,481 793,372 855,603 435,581 ` 498,786 581,951 * Excludes estimated population served by TRA and private septic tanks. ** Excludes Arlington service. Note: Population and employment projections based on city limits of Fort Worth and Wholesale Customers. 8 Final Draft APPENDIX BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES APPENDIX BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY, AND RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES BACKGROUND Population and employment forecasts developed for the City of Fort Worth Water Service Area are based on information provided by the records of the City of Fort Worth Water Department wholesale customers, the City of Fort Worth, and data from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Population and employment forecasts are based on the city limits of Fort Worth and the wholesale customers. METHODOLOGY It is necessary to analyze the Water Service Area population and employment data to understand the City of Fort Worth's current (1996) and future wastewater service requirements. Letter surveys were sent to each wholesale customer to provide information on current land use, population, and employment. In addition, each wholesale customer was asked to provide forecasts of community population and employment for the years 2006 and 2016 Population and employment projections provided by the wholesale customers were compared with data prepared by the NCTCOG and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) In the event that there was a substantial discrepancy between wholesale customer and NCTCOG or TWDB forecasts, the customer was contacted to discuss the discrepancy and to establish appropriate figures. In summary, wholesale customer projections were compared to 1) NCTCOG projections for the years 2010 and 2020, 2) Interpolated NCTCOG projections for 2006 and 2016, and 3) Texas Water Development Board projections for 1990 to 2020 (in 5-year increments) Some of the wholesale customers and the City of Fort Worth were unable to provide population and/or employment forecast for the target forecast years of 2006 and 2016 Population forecasts for those wholesale customer cities were determined by interpolating between the 1996 population data provided by the wholesale customers and NCTCOG forecasts for the years 2010 and 2020 The following explains this process. A population figure for 2006 was obtained by interpolating between the wholesale customer's 1996 population and the NCTCOG 2010 population forecast to determine agrowth-per-year growth constant. The growth constant was then used to io determine the increase in population from 1996 to 2006 and project the year 2006 population A population figure for 2016 was obtained by determining a growth constant between NCTCOG 2010 and 2020 population forecasts. This growth constant was used to determine the increase in population from 2006 to 2016 and project the year 2016 population In instances where a 2020 forecasted population was not available, a growth constant was developed for the years between 1996 and 2010 to then forecast a population for 2016 Some of the wholesale customers were unable to provide a 1996 population Data available from NCTCOG were used to determine a 1996 population for these wholesale customers. Employment forecasts for the years 2006 and 2016 were determined in the same manner as population forecasts. However, many of the wholesale customers did not have a 1996 employment estimate. In these cases, employment figures from the 1990 Census and NCTCOG 2010 employment forecast were used to determine a growth constant. This growth constant was used to determine a 1996 employment estimate. The City of Fort Worth, along with several of the wholesale customer cities have populations that are served by the Trinity River Authority These populations were factored out of the total population figures using information supplied by the wholesale customer city and NCTCOG For the City of Fort Worth, the population served by the TRA was obtained by using Census Tract and NCTCOG Forecast District projections These numbers were applied to' the total population figures to obtain the Fort Worth population served by the Village Creek WWTP Likewise, the population served by the Village Creek WWTP and the City of Arlington was obtained by using Census Tract and NCTCOG Forecast District projections RESOURCES 1990 Census Population and Housing Characteristics. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972 North Central Texas Council of Governments Dallas/Fort Worth Economic Outlook Recent Trends and Long-Range Forecasts to the Year 20i0~ Regional Data Center, February 1989 North Central Texas Council of Governments. North Central Texas 1994 Demographic Forecasts: Research and Information Services, Fall 1994 ii North Central Texas Council of Governments North Central Texas 1994 Demographic Forecasts 2020 Extension Research and Information Services, Winter 1996 North Central Texas Council of Governments 1995 Current Population Estimates' Research Information Services, April 1995 Texas Water Development Board. Water for Texas -Today and Tomorrow A Consensus -Based Update to the Texas Water Plan January 1996 12 WHOLESALE CUSTOMER SURVEY 13 January 10, 1996 Reference: Fort Worth Water Department Impact Fee Ordinance Update Dear In axordance with Section 395.052 of the 'Chapter 395 Financing Capital Improvements Required by new Developmerrts in Municipalities; Counties and Certain Other Local Govemmerits' of Texas State Statutes and applicable sections of the Fort Worth Water and Wastewater Corrtrad with you, we are initiating the updating of the present Land Use Assumptions and impact Fee Ordinance which was adopted on June 6, 1990 and revised on June 6, 1993. The C'rty of Fort Worth Water Department will be using the NCTCOG population forecasts for its 16 County Region as a basis in the calculation of number of service units in the Fort Worth Water/Wastewater benefd area We are soliating our wholesale customers help in our preliminary analysis of water usage and wastewater discharge rates to compare to the NCTCOG population forecasts. In this regard, we have a series of questions related to a) your present total water sales and b.) any significant change in number of water customers since 1993 that would have an effect upon either your municipalities future water usage or wastewater discharge to the City of Fort Worth system. Your help in this request will greatly benefd our updating activities, plus your help will provide a more axurate assessment of the present and future land use assumptions regarding your City. Our questions are as follows: 1 a. Water Resources Total water purchased from the C'rty of Fort Worth mg 1993 mg 1994 mg 1995 1 b. Total water usage by your City in mg 1993 mg 1994 mg 1995 i January 10, 1996 Page 2 2. Water Resources (Future). Estimated percentage of total water usage by your City and which is purchased. % 2006 % 2016 3a. Number of residential water meters at present (no flag meters or fire line meters). 3/4' 4• 1' 6' 1 1/2' g• 2' 10' 3' 3b. Number of non-residential water meters at present (no flag meters or fire line meters). 3/4' q• ~ ~ 6' 1 1 /2' g• 2• 10' 3' 4a. Historical annual water used (mg) by residential customers in the last sbc years. 1990 1993 1991 1994 1992 1995 4b. Historical annual water used (mg) by non-residential customers in the last six years. 1990 1993 1991 1994 1992 1995 5a. Monthly total water use by residential for the last 2 years. 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oa Nov Dec January 10, 1996 Page 3 5b. Monthly total water use by non-residential for the fast 2 years. 1994 Jan Feb Mar ' Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nov Dec 6. Current number of wastewater residential customers. Residential Non-Residential 7 Historical annual wastewater discharge into Fort Worth system for the last 5 years. Residential (gal) Non•Residential (gaq 1991 1991 1992. 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 8. Do you have a City Comprehensive L$nd Use Plan? Yes No If you answer is Yes, would you make a copy available b the City of FoR Worth Water Department? 9. Has your C'~ty had a significant (5% or more) change in population since the following dates? 1990 yes no 1993 yes no !f you answered yes b either of the above please indicate the percentage of change. 10. Has there been a major addition, or deletion, of a high volume water user (i.e., a new industry, the closing of a major retail land use) or the addition of a high volume mufti-family land use to your City since the following dates? (High volume user meaning that the subject water use is noticeab{e in the Citys monthly water sales records.) 1990 yes no 1993 yes no If your answer is yes, is the land use residential or non-residential T January 10, 1996 Page 4 11 12. 13. 14. 15. Best estimate of acres of use in your City for the following is: Low density (0~4 units/ac) residential Medium density (5-8 units/ac) residential High dens'Ry (9 units +) residential acxes acxes acres Commercial Industrial - (warehousing) jheavy) Vacant Land acres acxes acres acres Has there been a change of number acres of the above listed land use since 1993? No Yes, more acres of: Medium density residential High density residential Commercial Heavy Industrial Any of the land uses in question 12 a or wastewater customers? Yes No Other Data Are there any ordinances concerning water and wastewater impact fees within your community? Yes ~ No If yes, please include a copy of your ordinance when mailing this questionnaire back to the Ciy of Fora Worth Water Department What is your forecast of community population? Residential Employment 1995 2006 2016 Due to the nature of our expedited schedule your response to the questions is needed by February 12, 1996. Carter 8~ Burgess, lnc. with CH2M Hill, is under cormact for the.preparation of the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance preparation. The schedule for the prepazation of the Ordinance will be provided to each wholesale customer during the next few weeks. Each wholesale customer will be continually advised as to the Ordinance updating progress through monthly newsletters to you, Water and Wastewater System Advisory Committee and Customer Impact Fee Committee (CIFC) meetings. January 10, 1996 Page 5 Should you have any questions related to the inforrnation we are requesting, don't hesitate to call Mr Tommy O'Brien, P.E. of Carter r~ Burgess, Inc., at (817) 735-7131 Again, thank you for your help in the updating of the Land Use Assumptions in that we can be more axurate in our impact fee calculations. Sincerely, Lee C. Bradley, Jr., P.E. Water Director TOO/LB/rb 953100.L11 cc: Correspondence Mail Responses to: Mr S. Frank Crumb, P.E. City of Fort Worth Water Department P. O. Box 870 1000 ThrockmoRon Street FoR Worth, Texas 76101-0870 Exhibit C: Water Service Area ~ ~ ~w~ e MID~OS •n rvpCOC N N Opr dRnwan Fort Worth, Texas Ff$ Cmler~Burgess .o~~ YP,AR 2006 WATER SERVICE AREA YEAR 2016 WATER SERVICE AREA INDIRECT WHOLESALE CUSTOMER (WATAUGA) ~~,,,, CITIES NOT INCLUDED IN SERVICE AREA r ~`~ EXI-II~IT D orth Prepared by CH2M MILL March 199b :~~ :~v'Vorth rtment PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLYPRPr« ~r'~'a n J ~i+e ~s`I by y ~ ~- ~ moo S CH2M HILL ' y / ~ l ~G March 1996 ~f Contents Page Executive Summary ......................................... 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 Eligible Facilities ........................................... 4 Raw Water Sources and Transmission 4 Water Treatment Plants 5 Pump Stations 5 Storage Tanks 5 - Engineering Studies 6 Capacity Criteria .............................~.............. 8 Raw Water Sources and Transmission 8 Water Treatment Plants 8 Pump Stations 9 Storage Tanks 11 Facility Requirements .................... .................. 13 Raw Water Sources and Transmission 13 Water Treatment Plants 13 Pump Stations 16 Storage Tanks 17 Engineering Studies 17 Service Unit Determination ................................... 18 Appendix A. CIP Projects Appendix B Pumping Capabilities Appendix C Distribution System Storage Appendix D Meter Summaries 1 Executive Summary Water Capital Improvements Plan This report contains the Water Capital Lnprovement Plan (WCIP) for determination of unpact fees When combined with the Carter & Burgess, Inc report titled "Land Use Assumptions -Water Facilities, 1996-2016" (Land Use Assumptions) the WCIP provides the necessary engineenng calculations and justification for determining the maxunum assessable unpact fee under the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 Tlus report updates the CIP and unpact fee study update performed onginally by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1990 and updated by Carter and Burgess in association with CH2M -BILL in 1993 The unpact fee law requires that the reports and unpact fee ordinance be updated every three years and the unpact fee revised, if necessary The general approach to the WCIP preparation was nearly identical to the 1993 study As in 1993, the Fort Worth Water Department chose to exclude the water distribution system and financing costs from the WCIP which lowered the maximum assessable fee but also significantly reduced the complexity of the WCIP The distribution system was excluded because the costs for these unprovements are generally paid for by developers anyway If they were included, a refund mechanism would be required to return a portion of the unpact fee to developers to compensate them for the cost of those facilities they construct. This would greatly increase the cost of administration of the impact fee program with only a small net gain in collections Sunilarly, the uncertainty regarding interest rates and sources of funds could cause refunds to be required if financing costs were included and the CIP assumptions proved incorrect. The WCIP analyzed what facilities would be required to serve growth between the years 1996 and 2006 Eligible facilities included in this study were treatment plants, pump stations, storage facilities, and engineenng studies The present and future capacity of these facilities was analyzed based on the Fort Worth design cntena found in the 1989 Water Master Plan, system operating records over the past 20 years, and the Land Use Assumptions The following table compares the results of the 1993 and 1996 studies 1993 196 WCIP Costs $30,558,978 $34,247,781 Total Equivalent Meters 34,318 42,833 Maxunum Assessable Impact Fee .$890 $799 The following items are changes made for the 1996 WCIP along with the impact (1993 versus 1996) on the maxunum assessable fee 1 Project costs for future projects have been updated to 1996 dollars This raised the fee by the rate of inflation. D FW 1 \ 132558~EXECSLJM. W PS 0 s 2 A few projects have been added to the CIP to more accurately reflect the needs of the system to meet current growth patterns This should not sigmficantly effect the maxunum impact fee 3 As shown in the Land Use Assumptions, population projections have nsen smce the 1993 study The projects and the allocations in the WCIP have been adjusted to reflect the revised population forecasts Generally this raises the fee because additional, newer facilities are required to meet the growth The maxunum assessable unpact fee fora 3/4" water meter was found to be $799, which is down from $890 iri the 1993 study The primary reason for this decrease was the reallocation of costs related to the Eagle Mountain WTP Compared to the previous -study, additional costs associated with the Rolling Hills WTP were allocated to the study penod and a greater percentage of the more expensive Eagle Mountain WTP costs were allocated to existing customers The unpact fee calculated in this report is the maxunum assessable fee The City of Fort Worth is legally allowed to charge any unpact fee up to the maxunum amount. Lower fees may be adopted to encourage growth The difference between what is required by the WCIP and the amount collected through impact fees will need to be made up thrcugh higher water rates or other sources of revenue DF W 11132558\BXECS UM. WPS City of Fort Worth, Texas Water Capital Improvements Plan for Determination of Impact Fees INTRODUCTION This document contains the water Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for determination of impact fees for the City of Fort Worth, Texas and calculates the maximum assessable fee. This study updates the report prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1990 and updated by Carter and Burgess in association with CH2M HILL in 1993 The City of Fort Worth provides water to retail as well as a number of wholesale customers in Tarrant County as described in "Land Use Assumptions -Water Facilities, 1996 - 2016" (Land Use Assumptions) The purpose of the CIP is to identify those projects which will be required to be constructed to serve new growth occurring in the Fort Worth service area between the years 1996 - 2006 The water service area is defined as the water benefit area plus all the wholesale customers. The water benefit area is defined as that area within the city limits of Fort Worth and its extratemtonal jurisdictions where water service is provided or is anticipated to be provided on a retail basis Population projections found in the Land Use Assumptions report have been used when determining the size and quantity of new facilities Detailed sizing and siting of facilities within the Fort Worth system is beyond the scope of this project. For impact fee determination purposes, projects identified in the 1989 Fort Worth Water Master Plan (Master Plan) or other ,projects which have been identified in subsequent projects and conform to the general system needs determined in this study have been selected for inclusion into the CIP The impact fee includes only that portion of the cost of an improvement which is directly related to new growth Those projects required to allow the system to serve present customers such as upgrades and additional treatment processes are not included except to the extent that they have excess capacity which will also serve future growth Likewise, it may be cost effective to oversize some expansion projects to take advantage of economies of scale. For impact fee purposes, however, only that portion which serves growth in the 1996 - 2006 study penod is included. The impact fee will be determined based on the number of service units projected to be added in the 10-year study penod This study assumes a 3/4" water meter to be the standard service unit for both water and wastewater Other size meters will be assessed a higher rate based on the hydraulic capacity of the meter as described later in this report. DFWI\132558\RPT001 wP5 3 ELIGIBLE FACILITIES The impact fee law allows all those projects which were undertaken to serve growth during the study period to be included in the impact fee calculation This includes costs for the development of raw water sources, transmission lines, treatment plants, collection or distribution systems, pump stations, storage tanks, customer service facilities, finance charges, and engineenng studies The City of Fort Worth has elected not to include the water distribution system or finance charges in the impact fee calculation This decision simplifies the calculation but lowers the total allowable fee which can be collected The reason the distribution system was not included in the study was because the cost for most of these facilities are already borne by developers as part of the improvements required when they plat a development. Should an impact fee which included these facilities be assessed, the contractors would be due a partial refund based on the value of the facilities they installed This would significantly increase the costs to administer the impact fee program due to the additional accounting requirements The City would be required to audit capital improvement projects constructed by developers to venfy that an appropnate credit is being given to the developers. Finance costs were not included because of the uncertainties involved with interest rates and sources of funds on future projects. Administration of the impact fee program is increased when financing costs are included since refunds may be required if interest rate or fund source assumptions are incorrect. All of those items which are being excluded from the CIP in this study (collection system, lift stations, and financing costs) were also excluded in both the 1990 and 1993 studies. The following paragraphs briefly describe the existing facilities in the Fort Worth Water System and lists those projects which are eligible for consideration in the CIP Figure 1 shows the physical location for these projects. Appendix A describes each of the projects in greater detail Raw Water Sources and Transmission The City of Fort Worth currently has five sources of raw water • Lake Worth • Clear Fork of Trinity River via Lake Benbrook • Richland Chambers Reservoir • Cedar Creek Reservoir • Eagle Mountain Lake The costs associated with construction of the raw water sources is reflected in the raw water rate structure and proportional to the amount of water withdrawn Since the raw DFWI\132558\I2PT001 WPS 4 water supplier has already included these costs in the rate structure, they are not eligible for inclusion into the impact fee calculation The cost for raw water pump stations and transmission mains, however, may be included if they are owned and operated by Fort Worth The intake structure and raw water pipeline built to serve the new Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant are examples of this type of facility They may be included in the CIP to the extent that their capacity is used to serve growth during the study period Water Treatment Plants The Fort Worth system currently has four water treatment plants in operation The oldest plants are the North Holly and South Holly plants which have a combined capacity of 160 million gallons per day (MGD) The third plant is the Rolling Hills WTP which was built - in 1973 with an 80 MGD capacity and expanded in 1983 to a total capacity of 160 MGD The Eagle Mountain WTP has a capacity of 30 MGD and was completed in 1992 The present total available treatment capacity is 350 MGD The Master Plan identifies two additional projects which may be needed to accommodate future growth These area 30 MGD expansion of the Eagle Mountain plant (Phase II) and another 70 MGD expansion of the Rolling Hills plant (Phase III) Pump Stations The Fort Worth system contains fifteen pump stations with a combined capacity of 330 MGD (200 MGD firm) in the distribution system In addition, each water treatment plant has a pump station with the combined capacity of these stations equalling 637 MGD (535 MGD firm) These pump stations transfer water among the vanous pressure planes and customer cities as well as helping maintain pressure in the system Appendix B lists the pump stations presently in the Fort Worth system The water Master Plan identifies three projects which were anticipated to be needed during the study perood These were. 40 MGD expansion of Randol Mill Pump Station New 46 MGD pump station at North Beach Street New 0 5 MGD Westland Tank Pump Station Storage Tanks Fort Worth has both elevated and ground storage tanks within their distribution system Tanks are classified as elevated or ground based on their overflow elevations and the pressure in the pressure plane to which they are allocated A tank may act as a ground storage tank to one pressure plane and an elevated tank to a lower pressure plane. A tanks volume may only be allocated once, however, so a tank which has its water DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 5 allocated as elevated storage iri a lower plane may not be counted as ground storage in the pressure plane in which it physically resides The Fort Worth water system currently has 19 storage tanks within the distribution system, ranging in size from 0 5 to 9 2 MG A list of the existing storage tanks and the pressure planes in which they are allocated is shown in Appendix C The system contains 54 7 MG of storage classified as elevated and 71 2 MG of total storage. In addition to the storage within the distribution system, each water treatment plant has ground storage available. This storage capacity is. North Holly - 9 MG South Holly - 12 MG Rolling Hills - 17 MG _ Eagle Mountain - 7 MG Total 45 MG The latest Fort Worth Capital Improvements Plan identifies eight projects which are anticipated to be required during the study period These are. • 1 MG ground storage at Como in Westside II • 2 MG elevated storage in Blue Mound (Harmon Rd) in Northside III • 2 MG elevated storage in Eastside II Low • 4 MG ground storage at Alta Mesa in Southside II • 2 MG elevated storage in Westside IV • 2 MG ground storage in Southside II • 2 MG ground storage in Westside III • 5 MG ground storage at Stagecoach in Westside II In addition, storage at the water treatment plants will need to be increased as the capacity of the plants is increased Engineering Studies There are several engineering studies which are eligible for inclusion into the CIP The following is a brief list of the projects. 1 1989 Master Plan -This comprehensive engineering. report projected growth and analyzed growths effect on the Fort Worth Water System through the year 2010 The project was required to guide the capital improvement program and ensure construction in a planned and cost effective manner DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 6 2 1999 Master Plan -This comprehensive engineering report will update and extend the 1989 Master Plan Study It will analyze the effect growth has on the Fort Worth system through the year 2020 and will guide the capital improvements program during those years 3 Water Impact Fee Update -This engineering report is required by law every 3 years in order to verify that the impact fee charged new customers to the system is reasonable and proportionate to their impact on the system The original impact fee was approved in 1990 so reports during this study period will need to be performed in 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 7 CAPACITY CRITERIA Raw Water Sources and Transmission The City of Fort Worth has a long term contractual agreement with the Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement Distract No 1 to obtain as much raw water as desired The sources of raw water are therefore considered adequate at present and throughout the study penod. The raw water pumping facilities and transmission lines are sized based on the rated capacity of the plant they are serving As such, they are allocated to future growth in the same proportion as the water treatment plants Facilities which feed the Holly and Rolling Hills plants have been in place for some time and are considered to only serve existing - customers. The facilities associated with the Eagle Mountain WTP can be allocated to future growth as described under the "Water Treatment Plants" section of this report. Water Treatment Plants The water treatment plants should be designed with a total rated capacity equal to the systems maximum day demand The Master Plan identified the maximum day demand for Fort Worth only as 1 90 times the average day use based on histoncal data. For the wholesale customers, the maximum day was computed in the Master Plan based on 2 3 times average day These factors were re-evaluated based on six more years of historical data and found that while the Fort Worth ratio still appears reasonable, the ratio for customer cities is overly conservative. A ratio of 2 1 times average day was determined to be more in-line with historical usage and will be used in computing demands in this report. For the entire system, the weighted average of the max day to average day ratios based on number of connections is 200 The Master Plan also identified the expected average day flow It was determined that the average consumption per capita per day would be 226 gallons for the entire system, again based on historical records The Master Plan further stated that the consumption rate per capita was not increasing over time. A re-evaluation of the historical data seemed to indicate that per capita consumption was increasing slightly over time, although an analysis is difficult due to the widely variable average usage due primarily to weather conditions and the level of economic activity The re-evaluation did confirm, however, that 226 gallons per capita-day (gpcd) was a reasonable design average flow for the system It was determined that any future increases in per capita consumption dunng the study period would be slight and probably offset by planned conservation measures. Therefore, the consumption rate was considered to remain constant. DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 8 The maximum day demand was computed as follows. MAX = AVG x FACT Where MAX = Maximum Day Consumption Per Capita AVG = Average Day Consumption Per Capita = 226 FACT = Max Day/Avg Day Factor = 2 00 MAX = (226) x (2 00) = 452 gpcd Based on 1996 populations as provided in the Land Use Assumptions, the maximum day equals. Max Day = 452 gpcd x 712, 805 capita Max Day = 322 MGD In the year 2006, the maximum day would equal Max Day = 452 gpcd x 803,784 capita Max Day = 363 MGD Based on these figures 41 MGD (363 MGD minus 322 MGD) of treatment capacity is required to serve future growth Pump Stations The state (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) requirements for pump station capacity is 0 6 GPM per connection for cities with an elevated storage capacity greater than 200 gallons per connection such as Fort Worth On a system wide basis, this computes to a required pumping capacity of (0 6 GPM/conn) x (222,810 Conn) x (24 hrs/day) x (60 min/hr) = 193 MGD Since much of the water is pumped more than once to reach the more distant and higher pressure planes, on a system-wide basis this capacity underestimates the pumping required In addition, the state requirements are minimum values and if greater pumping capacity is required to meet demand and maintain system pressure, then it must be provided The City of Fort Worth uses the requirement that pumping capacity must equal the greater of peak hour flow or the maximum day flow plus fire flow On a ,system-wide basis in 1996 the required pumping capacities compute to Pump Capacity Pump Capacity = Max Day x Peak Hour factor = 322 x 1 4 = 451 MGD DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 9 Figure 1: CIP Projects a~~. c~unuc swa w ~mrs Fort Worth, Tezas d....~.~ .~.. Ot fw...e.^.. YEAR 2006 WATER SERVICE AREA YEAR 2016 WATER SERVICE AREA INDIRECT WHOLESALE CUSTOMER (R'ATAUGA) CITIES NOT INCLUDED IN SERVICE AREA Where. Max Day = System Maximum Day Flow (from previous section) Peak Hour Factor = Peak Hour/Max Day factor from Master Plan Or, based on fire flow plus max day• Pump Capacity = Max Day + Fire Flow = 322 + 46 = 368 MGD where fire flow is based on Ft. Worth and state criteria requiring a 4000 GPM fire flow per pressure plane Fire = 4000 GPM x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day x 8 pressure planes = 46 0 MGD Therefore, the controlling factor will be peak hour demands and the pumping capacity required to serve existing customers will be 451 MGD in 1996 In the year 2006, the peak hour pumping capacity required is. Pump Capacity = 363 x 1 4 = 508 MGD These calculations show 57 MGD of pumping capacity (508 MGD - 451 MGD) is required to serve growth in the years 1996 to 2006 Storage Tanks State water system design criteria require 200 gallons per connection of total storage and 100 gallons per connection of elevated storage. Since Fort Worth provides storage to many of its wholesale customers, all wholesale customers were treated as retail customers when computing the amount of storage required by Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission criteria. The computed state storage requirements are. 1996 Total = 200 gal/conn x 222, 810 Conn = 44 6 MG Elevated = 100 gal/conn x 222, 810 conn = 22 3 MG 2006 Total = 200 gal/conn x 253,666 conn = 50 7 MG Elevated = 100 gal/conn x 253,666 conn = 25 4 MG DFWi\132558\RPr001 WPS 11 These requirements are well below the 116 2 MG of total storage (71 2 MG m the distribution system plus 45 MG at the water treatment plants) and 54 7 MG of elevated storage in the Fort Worth System Again, the state requirements are minimum, however, and must be increased if required on an operational basis. Design criteria used by Fort Worth are. Total Storage = Avg Day Consumption (Ft. Worth Only) Elevated Storage = 1) Operational Storage + Fire Storage or 2) State Fire Standards Presently 7 7 MG of elevated storage in the Fort Worth system is dedicated to fire _ storage. Fire storage was based on a 4000 GPM fire fighting flow for 4 hours to each of the eight pressure planes. For the purpose of calculating impact fees, the fire storage volume has been subtracted from available elevated storage and will not be included when calculating future demands for elevated storage. This leaves 54 7 - 7 7 = 47 MG of available elevated storage and changes the cntena for elevated storage capacity to Elevated Storage = Operational Storage Since some customer cities maintain their own total storage for use in emergencies, the total storage required to meet Fort Worth design cnteria was based on the Fort Worth population only Average day consumption for Fort Worth by itself was found in the Master Plan to equal 231 gpcd Operational storage has been determined based on historical data to be 20% of the maximum day flow Since elevated storage is used to meet peak hour demands which include the wholesale customers, the demand for determination of elevated storage requirements was based on the entire system The storage required is computed as follows. 1996 Total Storage = Elevated Storage = 2006 Total Storage = Elevated Storage = (231) (471,149) = 109 MG 20 (322 MGD) =64.4 MG (231) (504,006) = 116 MG 20 (363 MGD) = 72.6 MG The controlling design basis for total storage is 109 MG in 1996 and 116 MG in 2006 For elevated storage the basis is 64 4 MG in 1996 and 72 6 MG in 2006 DFW1\132SS8\RPT001 WPS 12 Facility Requirements This section justifies the projects selected for the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and allocates their cost to existing, planning period, and beyond planning period customers. Table 1 summarizes the projects selected for the CIP and shows $34,247,781 worth of projects can be directly attributable to growth dunng the study period The actual project costs were used when available and updated Master Plan projections were used on future projects. The following paragraphs describe the allocation and justification for each of these projects. Raw Water Sources and Transmission As previously discussed, the City of Fort Worth is provided as much raw water as required by the TCWCID No 1 The cost for developing these raw water sources is included in the rate structure to the City and are not included in the impact fee calculation The raw water pump station and transmission line for the Eagle Mountain WTP are included, however, since it was built by Fort Worth to serve the same mix of customers as the Eagle Mountain WTP As such, its costs are allocated the same as the water treatment plant described in the following section Water Treatment Plants The current capacity of water treatment plants in the Fort Worth system is 350 MGD As described previously, the maximum day demand is expected to nse from 322 MGD at present to 363 MGD in the year 2006 Figure 2 graphically shows the water demand and treatment capacity available during the study penod It is assumed that the entire capacity of the two Holly plants (160 MGD) and the first phase of the Rolling Hills plant (80 MGD) are dedicated to existing customers. In order to determine the allocation between Rolling Hills Phase II and the Eagle Mountain WTP an estimate of the demand in the Eagle Mountain service zone in 1996 and 2006 was performed using 1990 forecast zone population data. The estimated maximum day demand in the Eagle Mountain (EM) service zone in 1996 is 65 8 MGD This is considerably greater than the 30 MGD capacity of the Eagle Mountain WTP and shows that on peak days the northern pressure planes will need to be supplemented with flow from the Rolling Hills WTP In 2006, the maximum day demand in the EM service zone is expected to increase to 88 3 MGD, an increase of 22 5 MGD For the purposes of allocating costs for these water treatment facilities, the following assumptions were made. DFWI\132558UtPT001 WPS 13 Table 1 Water Capital Improvements Plan Projects Impact Fees Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Total Project To Existing Cost Allocated To Expansion Cost Start Duration Completion 1996 Capacity To Expansion Beyond 2006 ID Project Title ($) Date (Months) Date (S) 1996-2006 (S) Storaae Tanks W2-1 5 MG Ground Storage at Stagecoach (ENGR) 87,500 1-Apr-94 21 31-Dec-95 59,500 28,000 0 W2-1 5 MG Ground Storage at Stagecoach 875,000 1-Apr-96 12 31-May-97 595,000 280,000 0 N3-4 2 MG Elevated Storage in Blue Mound Area (Harmon Rd) (ENGR) 273,500 1-Jun-97 12 1-Jul-98 185,980 87,520 0 N3-4 2 MG Elevated Storage In Blue Mound Area (Harmon Rd) 2,735,000 1-Sep-98 12 31-Aug-99 1,859,800 875,200 0 E2-3 2 MG Elevated Storage (Eastside II Low) (ENGR) 273,500 1-Dec-98 12 30-Nov-99 185,980 87,520 0 E2-3 2 MG Elevated Storage (Eastside II Low) 2,735,000 1-Feb-00 12 30Jan-01 1,859,800 875,200 0 S2-2 4 MG Ground Storage at Alta Mesa (ENGR) 77,500 1-Aug-96 12 31-Jul-97 52,700 24,800 0 S2-2 4 MG Ground Storage at Alta Mesa 775,000 1-Nov-97 12 30-Oct-98 527,000 248,000 0 W4-3 2 MG Elevated Tank at Westside IV (ENGR) 273,500 1-Oct-01 12 30-Sep-02 185,980 87,520 0 W4-3 2 MG Elevated Tank at Westside IV 2,735,000 1-Jan-03 12 30-Dec-03 1,859,800 875,200 0 S2-4 2 MG Ground Storage at Southside II (ENGR) 44,500 1-Dec-98 9 31-Aug-99 30,260 14,240 0 S2.4 2 MG Ground Storage at Southside II 445,000 1-Dec-99 9 30-Aug-00 302,600 142,400 0 W3-4 2 MG Ground Storage at Westside III (ENGR) 44,500 1-Jul-01 12 29-Jun-02 30,260 14,240 0 W3-4 2 MG Ground Storage at Westside III 445,000 1-Oct-02 12 30-Sep-03 302,600 142,400 0 W2- 1 MG Ground Storage at Como (ENGR) 30,000 30Jun-96 12 1-Jul-97 20,400 9,600 0 W2- 1 MG Ground Storage at Como 300,000 1-Jul-97 12 1-Jul-98 204,000 96,000 0 Pumo Stations E2-1 Expansion of Randoll Mill Pump Station 40 MGD (ENGR) 54,000 1-Aug-01 12 31-Jul-02 0 14,688 39,312 E2-1 Expansion of Randoll Mill Pump Station 40 MGD 540,000 1-Dec-02 12 30-Nov-03 0 146,880 393,120 W4-1 New Pump Station at Westland Tank 0.5 MGD (ENGR) 23,000 1-Oct-01 12 30-Sep-02 0 6,256 16,744 W4-1 New Pump Station at Westland Tank 0.5 MGD 230,000 1-Jan-03 12 30-Dec-03 0 62,560 167 440 E2-2 North Beach Street Pump Station 46 MGD (ENGR) 97,000 1-Nov-98 12 31-Oct-99 0 97,000 0 E2-2 North Beach Street Pump Station 46 MGD 970,000 1-Feb-00 12 30-Jan-01 0 970,000 0 Treatment Facilities Raw Water Pipeline 3,481,696 1-Feb-90 24 31-Jan-92 2,176,060 1,305,636 0 Intake Structure 6,163,190 1-Feb-90 24 31-Jan-92 3,851,994 2,311 196 0 Eagle Mountain Lake WTP (PHASE I) (ENGR) 3,642,208 1-Jan-88 52 30-Apr-92 2,487,628 1 154,580 0 Eagle Mountain Lake Water Treatment Plant (PHASE I) 24,666,410 1-Apr-90 24 31-Jan-92 16,847 158 7,819,252 0 Rolling Hills WTP Expansion (ENGR) 903,487 1-Oct-80 27 30-Dec-82 694,782 208,705 0 Rolling Hills WTP Expansion 16,348,615 1-Oct-83 37 29-Oct-86 12,572,085 3,776,530 0 Eagle Mountain WTP Phase II (ENGR) 3,427,500 31-Dec-01 24 31-Dec-03 0 1 484,108 1,943,393 Eagle Mountain WTP Phase II 22,850,000 1-Jan-04 24 1-Jan-06 0 9,894,050 12,955,950 gnaineerina Studies 1989 Water Master Plan (ENGR) 908,500 1-Feb-86 47 30-Dec-89 545,100 363,400 0 1999 Water Master Plan (ENGR) 908,500 1-Feb-96 47 30-Dec-99 0 545,100 363,400 Impact Fee Study (ENGR) 200,000 1-Jan-96 120 1-Jan-07 0 200,000 0 Grand Total DFW 1WAluersawcipsls 97,563,606 47 436,466 34,247,781 15,879, 359 450 400 Eagle Mountain:Phase 350 - 0 2 '0 300 ca m 250 — 240 MGD 200 - 320 MGD Figure 2 Projected System Demands and Plant Capacities 322 MGD • Eagle Mountain Phase It, 350 MGD Max Day Demand Rolling Hills Phase II Expansion STUDY PERIOD— — 150 �. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year A, 363:MGD 41 MGD 2005 2010 2015 2020 Eagle Mountain Phase II will need to be constructed during the study period Only that additional capacity required on a system-wide basis (13 MGD) will be allocated to the study penod The remainder will be allocated for future growth Study Period Allocation = 13 MGD 30 MGD = 43 3 2 Eagle Mountain Phase I will be allocated to study penod growth based on the expected increase in demand in the service zone during the study period (22 5 MGD), less that demand which will be met by the Phase II expansion (13 MGD) The remainder will be allocated to existing customers. Study Penod Allocation = 22.5 - 13 MGD 30 MGD = 31 7 3 The remaining portion of the 41 MGD increase in demand dunng the study period will be allocated to the 80 MGD Rolling Hills Phase II expansion Study Period Allocation = 41 MGD -EMI allocation - EMII allocation Study Period Allocation = 41 - 9 5 - 13 MGD = 23 1 Pump Stations The most accurate method for computing pump station utilization is on a pressure plane basis. An approximation of the effect of growth on utilization can be obtained on a system wide basis but it will be conservative in that it fails to account for water pumped more than once. The data available for the land use assumptions computed population and population forecasts on a city-wide basis making it impractical to break down growth by pressure plane. For this reason, asystem-wide basis is used even though it is conservative. The necessary pumping capacity is projected to increase from 451 MGD in 1996 to 508 MGD in 2006 as shown earlier This results in 57 MGD of new pumping required to serve future growth The Master Plan identifies three projects with a total pumping capacity of 86.5 MGD which were projected to be needed dunng the study period The rapid growth of the Eagle Mountain WTP service zone has forced the North Beach Street Pump Station to be added to the CIP in order to transfer water from the Rolling Hills WTP Since this project is required in order to transfer water between service zones which is the basis for the methodology used in allocating WTP costs, 100% of the cost of this station is allocated to the planning penod The remaining projects will be allocated as follows. DFWI\132558~RP'r001 WPS 16 % Allocated = Total New Pumnina Reo'd - North Beach Street Capacity of Remaining Projects % Allocated = 57 - 46 MGD 40 5 MGD = 27 2 % The remainder of the costs for the pump stations will be dedicated for use beyond the year 2006 Storage Tanks The City of Fort Worth currently has 116 2 MG of total storage in their water system This is adequate capacity to supply growth through the study period Elevated storage within the Fort Worth System totals 47 MG plus 7 7 MG dedicated to fire storage. This is below the 64 6 MG excluding fire storage currently required by Fort Worth design cnteria and below the 72 8 MG excluding fire storage required by the year 2006 The Master Plan and the latest Fort Worth capital improvements plan identified seven projects to eliminate this shortfall The CIP projects have a combined capacity of 20 MG The total additional capacity required to satisfy the design criteria in the year 2006 is 726MG-47MG=256MG The Fort Worth water department has analyzed the CIP and was not able to identify projects which were reasonably expected to be built during the study period and could make up the 5 8 MG difference between planned projects and anticipated demand For the purpose of allocating costs, this variance was split between new and existing customers on a pro -rated basis. Study Period Growth = 72 6 - 64 4 = 8 2 MG Existing Customers Demand = 64 4 - 47 = 17 4 MG Allocation to Growth = 8 2 MG/25 6 MG = 32 0% Allocation to Existing = 17 4 MG/25 6 MG = 68 0% Engineering Studies There are three studies which have been included in the impact fee calculation They are. 1 1989 Master Plan - This study was required to guide the capital improvements program and ensure construction in a planned and cost effective manner The master plan covered the years 1990 to 2010 but master plans are typically updated every 10 years. The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule. Six years (1990-1996) or 6 0% of the cost has been allocated to existing customers Four years DFWI\132558\RPT001 WP5 17 (1996-2000) or 40% of the cost has been allocated to the study period The total cost shown is half the overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the wastewater impact fee. 2 1999 Master Plan -This study is allocated in the same manner as the 1989 Master Plan Six years (2000-2006) or 60% has been allocated to the study period Four years (2006-2010) or 40 % is allocated to growth beyond the year 2006 The total cost shown is half the overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the wastewater impact fee. 3 Impact Fee Study -This study is required by statute every three years to update the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the effect growth has on the system The cost for four impact fee studies (1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005) are allocated entirely to the study perood The total cost shown is half the overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the wastewater impact fee. SERVICE ITNIT DETERMINATION The equivalent meter has been selected as the method to measure consumption by new growth for impact fee purposes. The equivalent meter is defined as the unit equivalent to the hydraulic capacity of a 3/4" water meter The 3/4" water meter was selected because it represents the water meter size for an average single family home. Other meter sizes are represented by a number of equivalent meters through multiplication by an equivalency factor based on the hydraulic capacity of the meter Table 2 shows the equivalency factors used in this study for meters of vanous sizes. The total number of meters in the Fort Worth service area is provided in Appendix D This meter information is broken down by type (residential or non-residential) and size, and by whether the meter is serviced by the City of Fort Worth or serviced by a wholesale customer The appendix also summarizes the data for all the wholesale customers. The remaining pages break down the meter data by wholesale customer In nearly all cases, the wholesale customer was the source of meter information Once the number of equivalent meters has been determined, the next task is to calculate the number of people represented by a residential meter and the number of jobs represented by anon-residential meter This calculation was performed for the City of Fort Worth alone and for the wholesale customers as a group in order to get better accuracy in comparing population or employment changes to number of meters The results for the present (1996) system are: DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 18 TABLE 2 EQUIVALENT METER TABLE ACTUAL METER SIZE EQUIVALENCY FACTOR 5/8" or 3/4" 1 0 1 " 1 67 1-'/z" 333 2" 5 33 3" 10 0 4" 16 67 6" 33 33 8" 53 33 10" 76 67 Source. American Works Association, Manual of Water Supply Practices No M6, "Water Meters-Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance" DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 19 Fort Worth Only Residential a. Number of Equivalent Meters 140,363 b Population 471,149 c Employment -- Population per Equivalent Meter (b/a) 3 36 Employment per Equivalent Meter (c/a) -- Wholesale Customers Residential a. Number of Equivalent Meters 110,637 b Population 334,011 c Employment -- Population per Equivalent Meter (b/a) 3 02 Employment per Equivalent Meter (c/a) -- Non- Residential 50, 815 370,155 7 28 Non- Residential 18,664 128,267 6 87 Using the ratios determined above, the next step is to determine the increase in service units caused by growth in population and employment. Using population and employment projections found in the Land Use Assumptions for the years 1996 and 2006, the estimated number of additional equivalent meters can be calculated as follows Fort Worth Residential = (Population Change) _ 3 36 _ (504,006 - 471,149) _ 3 36 = 9,779 Non-Residential = (Employment Change) _ 7 2$ _ (449,580 - 370,155) - 7 28 = 10,910 Wholesale Customers Residential = (Population Change) _ 3 02 _ (299,778 - 241,656) _ 3 02 = 19,246 Non-Residential = (Employment Change) _ 6 87 _ (105,841 - 85,927) _ 6 87 = 2,898 Increase in Equivalent Meters = 42,833 DFWI\132558U2PT001 WPS 20 The final step in determining the maximum assessable impact fee is to divide the total costs included in the CIP (See Table 1) by the increase in equivalent meters. This calculation yields the impact fee assessable per equivalent meter (3/4" size) The fee for other size meters will equal the fee fora 3/4" meter times the equivalency factor found in Table 2 The maximum assessable impact fee is calculated as. Maximum Impact Fee = (CIP cost) - (Increase in Equivalent Meters) _ $34,247,781 - 42,833 Maximum Impact Fee = $799 per equivalent unit This impact fee underestimates the actual cost of providing service to new customers of the Fort Worth Water System The underestimate is caused by the City's decision not to include water distribution mains and by the effects of considenng pump stations on a system wide instead of a pressure plane basis as discussed previously If these were to be included, the maximum assessable fee would be increased The City of Fort Worth is legally allowed to charge any impact fee as long as it does not ~ exceed the maximum assessable fee. A lower fee can be adopted to encourage growth, however, the difference between what is required by the CIP and the amount collected in impact fees would need to be made up through higher rates to existing customers or other revenue sources. DFWI\132558~RPT001 WPS 21 Appendix A Appendix A CIP Projects Following is a brief description of proposed projects recommended by the Master Plan to be included in a water capital improvements plan Most of these projects have been included in the CIP for impact fee purposes Project Title. 5 MG ground storage at Stagecoach W2-1 Description Design and construction of a 5 MG ground storage tank for the Westside II pressure plane. Purpose. In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed for the Westside II Pressure Plane. This improvement is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan Study Status. Planning stage. Project Title. 2 MG elevated storage in Blue Mound area, N3-4 Description. Design and Construction of an elevated tank (2 MG) at the intersection of Harmon Road and Hicks Road in Northside III pressure plane. Purpose: Based on the current Water Master Plan, the existing elevated tank capacity for the Northside III pressure plane is not sufficient to meet projected population water demand and to meet the operational requirement criteria. Hence, additional elevated storage is recommended Status Planning stage. Project Title: 2 MG elevated storage (F.astside Low), E2-3 Description The design and construction of a two million gallon elevated storage facility to be located in the vicinity of the intersection of Highway 183 and Highway 360 in the Eastside II Pressure Plane. Purpose. Due to the creation of the Eastside II (I,ow) pressure plane and meeting the storage requirements the design and construction of this 2 MG elevated storage to feed the new Eastside II (Low) pressure plane is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan Status. Planning stage. DFWi\132558\RPT001 WPS 23 Project Title. 4 MG ground storage at Alta Mesa, S2-2 Descnption Design and construction of a 4 MG ground storage tank to be located at the existing Alta Mesa reservoir site in the Southside II pressure plane Purpose. Due to the future developments in Southside II and III pressure planes, additional storage facilities are required to meet operational storage requirements. This project is also recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan Status. Planning stage. Project Title: 2 MG elevated storage at Westside IV, W4-3 Descnption Design and construction of a two million gallon elevated storage tank to be located in the new Westside IV pressure plane. Purpose: In order to provide sufficient storage and supply for the future Westside IV pressure plane and to meet the operational storage requirements, the construction of a one million gallon ground storage facility is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan Study The tank size has been increased to 2 MG in the latest Fort Worth CIP Status. Planning stage. Project Title. 2 MG ground storage at Southern Site, S2-4 Description Design and construction of a ground storage tank (2 MG) to be located at the southern part of the Southside II pressure plane. Purpose. 1989 Water Master Plan recommends that additional storage capacity will be required by year 2003 to serve Southside II demand, based on the storage requirement criteria. Status. Planning stage. Project Title. 2 MG ground storage in Westside III pressure plane, W3-4 Description Design and construction of a 2 MG ground storage facility in Westside III pressure plane. Purpose: Due to the inadequacy of the existing storage facilities in the Westside III pressure plane, and to meet the present and future demand, the installation of this 2 MG ground storage facility is part of the recommended Master Plan improvements. Status. Planning stage. D'FWi\132558\RPT001 WPS 24 Project Title: 1 MG Ground Storage at Como, W2 Description Design and construction of a 1 MG ground storage tank at the Como facility in the Westside II pressure plane. Purpose: To provide additional storage for operational purposes. Project Title: Upgrade Randol Mill Pump Station, EZ-1 Description. Upgrade pumps in Randol Mill Pump Station to increase capacity 40 MGD Purpose: The eastern-most arm of the Eastside II Pressure Plane will have difficulty maintaining adequate pressures under increased future demands. Low pressure in this area is not a result of high ground elevation, but a result of the configuration of the pressure plane and the distances involved in transporting water from the Rolling Hills Treatment plant. To address this situation, this eastern arm must be isolated from the remainder of the Eastside II zone, thus creating a separate pressure plane. Elevated tanks located in this area will require lower overflow elevations than the existing Eastside tanks Therefore, this area is termed Eastside II (Low) To serve this Eastside II (Low) pressure plane, the Randol Mill Pump Station will be upgraded with new pumps. Status Planning stage. Project Title: New Booster Pump Station, E2-2 Description Design and installation of a new Booster Pump Station to be located on North Beach Street. Purpose: A booster pump station is needed to serve the portion of the eastside II Pressure Plane located north of the Holly Pressure Plane and west of Haltom City This azea is currently served by parallel 54-inch and 36-inch transmission mains. With increased demands in this area, it is not possible to maintain sufficient pressure in this azea or maintain sufficient water levels in the North Beach Reservoir This pump station will also serve to boost water from the Rolling Hills WTP into the Northside pressure planes to supplement the Eagle Mountain WTP on peak days. Status. Planning stage. Project Title: New pump station at Westland tank - 0.5 MGD, W41 Description Design and construction of a 0 5 MGD pump station to be located at the Westland Reservoir site in the Westside IV pressure plane. Dr~vni32sss~xrrooi wps 25 Purpose. Due to a lack of any pumping facilities in the Westside IV pressure plane for existing conditions and in order to meet the pressure requirements for future demands, the installation of this pump station is recommended Status. Planning stage. Project Title. Eagle Mountain Lake Treatment Plant, (Phase n Description Construction of the proposed Eagle Mountains Lake Water Treatment Plant, including the intake structure, clear wells, pump station and raw water line. _ Purpose: As the development of the northern segment of Fort Worth continues and additional water is required by wholesale customers (Keller, Southlake, Saginaw, Sansom Park, etc.), more potable water will be needed, which will exceed existing water treatment plant capacity, hence a new water treatment plant will be needed The Eagle Mountain Lake Water Treatment Plant will not only serve the Northside III pressure plane, but also will serve a portion of demands in the Northside II pressure plane. Status. Project completed Project Title. Eagle Mountain Lake Treatment Plant, (Phase In Descnption Construction of a second 30 MGD phase of the Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant. Purpose. The northern segment of Fort Worth is the fastest growing area in the City The plant expansion is required to help meet maximum day demands in this area. Status Planning stage. Other Projects Project Title. Rolling Hills Water Treatment Expansion to 160 MGD Descnption. Design and construction of Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant expansion to treat 160 MGD Purpose. Rolling Hills WTP was constructed in 1973 in two 40 MGD units and was designed to permit expansion to 160 MGD by doubling the existing facilities Because of the rapid growth of the City's south and east sides and projected water demand increase, this project was recommended in the 1979 Water Master Plan DFW1\132558\RPT001 WPS 26 Status. Construction was completed in 1986 Project Title. 1989 Water Master Plan Descnption Engineenng study to prepare Water Master Plan Purpose. A comprehensive water study was required to help guide long-term capital improvement pio~ects to ensure that the most cost effective projects are constructed In addition, it was necessary to update the 1979 Water Master Plan The Growth Management Study done by the Planning Department had identified the need for the Water Department to have a Water and Wastewater Master Plan Allocation This Water Master Plan will cover the planning penod from the year _ 1990 through the year 2010 but is expected to be updated after 10 years. The CIP covers the penod 1993 through 2003 The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule. Three years (1990-1993) or 33 3% of the cost has been allocated to existing customers. The remaining seven years (1993 - 2000) or 66 7 % of the cost has been allocated to the study penod Status. Study was completed in 1989 Project Title. 1999 Water Master Plan Description Engineenng study to update the Water Master Plan Purpose This water master plan update will project the system flows and needs for the years 2000 through 2020 The Master Plan guides the capital improvements program to ensure cost effective expansion of the system Allocation This water master plan will cover the planning penod from the year 2000 through the year 2020 but is expected to be updated after 10 years The CIP covers the period 1996 through 2006 The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule. Six years (2000 -2006) or 60% of the cost has been allocated to the study period The remaining four years (2006-2010) or 40% of the cost has been allocated to growth beyond year 2006 Status. Planned Project Title. Lnpact Fee Update Description An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed Purpose. By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every three years DFW1\132558\RPT001 wP5 27 Allocation 100 percent of the cost for studies in the years '1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 can be allocated to the planning penod Status On-going DFWl\132558\RPT001 WPS ~ 2g Appendix B Appendix B Pumping Capabilities North Holly Plant: Five 27 MGD and three 15 MGD electncally driven centrifugal units. Total capacity 180 MGD South Holly Plant: Four 30 MGD and one 15 MGD electncally drive centrifugal units Total capacity 135 MGD Rolling Hills. Plant: Seven 30 MGD, one 17 MGD, two 15 MGD and one 10 MGD electncally dnven centrifugal units. Total capacity 267 MGD Eagle Mountain Plant: Two 8 MGD, Two 15 MGD and Three 3 MGD electrically dnven centrifugal units Total capacity 55 MGD South Side Pressure Plane II (850'): Eighth Avenue Station. Two 10 MGD electrically dnven centnfugal units and one 9 MGD gas dnven unit for standby service. Total capacity 29 MGD Edwards Ranch Station. Two 16 MGD, one 10 MGD and one 5 MGD electrically dnven centrifugal units. Total capacity 47 MGD South Side Reservoir Station. Two 5 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 10 MGD South Side Pressure Plane III (990'): Russom Ranch Station. One 3 MGD and one 6 MGD electrically dnven centnfugal units and one 10 MGD electnc and gas unit. Total capacity 19 MGD Alta Mesa Station. Two 5 MGD and two 10 MGD electncally dnven centnfugal units. Total capacity 30 MGD DFWI\132558\RPT001 WPS 30 North Side Pressure Plane II (853'): North Side Station. Three 3 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units and one 4 5 MGD gas driven unit. Total capacity 13 5 MGD Cantrell-Sansom Station. One 2 MGD, one 3 MGD, and one 5 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 10 MGD North Beach Station. - One 2 MGD and one 4 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 6 MGD North Side Pressure Plane III (936'): Jenkins Heights Station. One 2 MGD, one S00 GPM (720 MGD) and one 800 GPM (1 152 MGD) electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 3 872 MGD West Side Pressure Plane II (857'): West Slde Station. One 12 MGD, one 6 33 MGD and two 5 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units and one 7 MGD gas driven standby unit. Total capacity 35 33 MGD Southslde Reservoir Station. Two 15 MGD, one 10 MGD and one 5 75 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units. Total capacity 45 75 MGD West Side Pressure Plane III (915'): Stagecoach Road Station Two 6 33 MGD and one 2 MGD electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 14 66 MGD West Side Pressure Plane IV: (There is no storage in this pressure plane). Chapple Creek Station. One 75 GPM, one 400 GPM and one 1000 GPM electrically driven centrifugal units Total capacity 2 124 MGD DFw11132558\RPT001 WPS 31 East Side Pressure Plane II (805'): East Side Station. One 22 MGD, one 17 MGD and three 5 MGD electrically dnven centrifugal units and one 7 MGD gas dnven standby unit. Total capacity 61 MGD Randol Mill Station. Two 5 MGD and one 10 MGD electrically dnven centnfugal units. Total capacity 20 MGD Fleetwood Station. Two 2 MGD, one 2 5 MGD, and one 5 MGD electrically dnven centrifugal units. Total capacity 11 5 MGD DFWI\1325581RPT001 wp5 32 Appendix C Appendix C Distribution System Storage Capacity (MG) Holly Pressure Plane (760'2 *North Side Concrete Reservoir 4 5 *South Side Concrete Reservoir 5 0 *Southside Reservoir Ground Storage Reservoir 6 0 East Side Pressure Plane_II (g05, *Eastwood Elevated Steel tank 1 5 *Timberline Elevated Steel Tank 2 0 *Meadowbrook Elevated Steel Tank 2 0 Randol Mill Ground Reservoir 6 0 Beach Street Ground Reservoir 5 5 Fleetwood Ground Reservoir 5 5 Southside Pressure Planes. Elevation 850' Plane II *Seminary Hill Elevated Steel Tank 2 0 *Alta Mesa Ground Storage Reservoir 9 2 Elevation 990' Plane III *Armstrong Ranch Elevated Steel Tank 2 0 *Sun County Elevated Steel Tank 2 0 Northside Pressure Planes. Elevation 853' Plane II *Northwest Elevated Steel Tank ~~ 1 0 Caylor Ground Storage Reservoir 5 0 Elevation 936' Plane III *Jenkms Heights Elevated Steel Tank 0 5 Westside Pressure Planes Elevation 857' Plane II *Calmont Elevated Steel Tank 1 0 *Stagecoach Ground Storage Reservoir 5 5 Elevation 974' Plane III *Westland Ground Storage Reservoir 5_0 Total Storage in Distribution System 71.2 Total Elevated Storage in Distribution System 54.7 * Classified as Elevated Storage Dr~vi~~s2ssavuYrooi wPS 34 Appendix D Meter Summary Cjty; Fnrt Wnrth Provided. W ~ WW Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 112,861 112,861 1" 1 67 11,716 19,566 1 lh" 3 33 1,591 5,298 2" 5 33 495 2,638 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 126, 663 140, 363 Non-Residential Meters 3/<<" 1 0 6,766 6,766 1" 1 67 2,145 3.582 1 'h" 3 33 1,553 5,171 2" 5 33 3,754 20,009 3" 10 0 288 2,880 4" 16 67 241 4,017 6" 33 33 129 4,300 8" 53 33 35 1,867 10" 76 67 29 2,223 Total 14,940 50,815 % Fort Worth Sewer 98 Total Meters 141,603 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 191,178 Total 1996 Population ~ 471,149 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 36 Weighted 1996 Population 471,149 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 7 28 Total 1996 Employment 370,155 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 33 Weighted 1996 Em to ent 370,155 Wei hted Meters 141,603 *Includes 2-12" Meters. DFWI/132558/FRMCWOl. WPS Meter Summary City• 1W6~!a~iP r,~~to.,,e.-~ noeran Prnvided_ W Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 1 ^ 1 67 -- -- 1 ~~ ^ 3.33 -- -- 2^ 5 33 -- -- 3 ^ 10 0 -- -- 4" 16.67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8 ^ 53.33 -- -- 10 76 67 -- -- Total -- 106,420 110,637 Non-Residential Meters 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'fz" 3 33 -- -- 2" 5.33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33.33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10" 76 67 -- -- Total 7 492 18 664 3o Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 113,912 ~O Fort Worth Water 71 3 Total Equivalent Meters 129,301 Total 1996 Population 334,011 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 02 Weighted 1996 Population 241,656 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 6.87 Total 1996 Employment 128,267 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.93 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 85 927 Wei hted Meters 81 207 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW02.WP5 Meter Summary C[ty; RPnhrnnk Provided. w ~ ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 5,347 5,347 1" 1 67 1,175 1,962 1 1/~" 3.33 3 10 2" 5 33 13 69 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10 76 67 - ~ - Total -- 6,538 7,388 Non-Residential Meters 3/a" 1 0 77 77 1 " 1 67 43 72 1 1/z" 3 33 13 43 2" 5 33 77 410 3" 10 0 16 160 4" 16.67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10" 76 67 - - Total 226 ~ 762 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 6,764 % Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 8,150 Total 1996 Population 20,197 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.73 Weighted 1996 Population 0 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 61 Total 1996 Employment 3,510 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.99 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 0 Weighted Meters 0 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW03. WPS Meter Summary City• RPthrcrla Water f'nrn Provided: w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 6,415 6,415 1" 1 67 0 0 1 ~/z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 5 27 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 ~ 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 6,420 6,442 Non-Residential Meters 3~ " 1 0 0 0 1" 1 67 0 0 1 'h" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 0 0 % Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 6,420 % Fort Worth Water 8 Total Equivalent Meters 6,442 Total 1996 Population 19.,260 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.99 Weighted 1996 Population 1,541 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters - Total 1996 Employment 0 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 00 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 0 Wei kited Meters 514 DF W 1 / 132558 /FR VIC W 04. W PS Meter Summary Clty' Rnrlvcpn Provided: w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/ ^ 1 0 5,582 5,582 1 ^ 1 67 16 27 1 'h" 3 33 2 7 2^ 5.33 2 11 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 5, 602 5, 627 Non-Residential Meters ~/a " 1 0 341 341 1" 1 67 70 117 1 'k " 3 33 52 173 2" 5 33 62 330 3" 10 0 10 100 4" 16 67 0 0 ` 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 535 1 061 4o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 6,137 Y Fort Worth Water 98 Total Equivalent Meters 6,688 Total 1996 Population 17,991 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3.20 Weighted 1996 Population 17,631 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 8.13 Total 1996 Employment 8,624 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.93 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 8 452 Wei hted Meters 6 014 DFWI/132558/FRMCWOS WPS Meter Summary City' f rnWIP3~ Provided. w Rc u/u/ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent ~/o " 1 0 2,300 2,300 1 " 1.67 20 33 1 'k" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 11 59 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 2,331 2,392 Non-Residential Meters '/a " 1 0 60 60 1" 1 6T 0 0 1 'fi" 3 33 0 0 2" 5.33 5 27 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16 67 3 50 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 69 147 ~O Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 2,400 4o Fort Worth Water 86 Total Equivalent Meters 2,539 Total 1996 Population 7,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.93 Weighted 1996 Population 6,020 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 11.29 Total 1996 Employment 1,660 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.92 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 1 428 Wei hted Meters 2 064 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided m 1996. DFW 1/132558/FRMCW06. WPS Meter Summary Clty• ilalwnrfhinafnn (iarr~onc Provided. u/~w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent ~/ " 1 0 811 811 1 ^ 1 67 - - 1 i~ ^ 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10.0 - - 4" 16.67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10 76 67 - - Total -- 811 811 Non-Residential Meters z,Q " 1 0 - - 1 " 1 67 - - 1 'k" 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10" 76 67 - - Total - - Y Fort Worth Sewer 90 Total Meters 811 4o Fort Worth Water 63 Total Equivalent Meters 811 Total 1996 Population 2,117 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.61 Weighted 1996 Population 1,334 Ratio-JobslNon-Resident. Equiv Meters - Total 1996 Employment 995 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.61 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 627 Wei hted Meters 511 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996. DFWI/132558/FRMCW07 WPS Meter Summary city' nFW Airnp~ Provided: w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ~,6 " 1 0 0 0 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'fz " 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 0 0 Non-Residential Meters ~,4 " 1 0 15 15 1" 1 67 17 28 1 'k " 3.33 4 13 2" 5 33 59 314 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.6? 12 200 6" 33.33 30 1,000 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 137 1 570 Y Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 137 `Yo Fort Worth Water 40 Total Equivalent Meters 1,570 Total 1996 Population 0 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters NA Weighted 1996 Population 0 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 26.05 Total 1996 Employment 40,900 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters NA Wei bled 1996 Em to ment 16 360 Wei bled Meters 55 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW08.WP5 Meter Summary City Frlgpcliff Villa~v Provided: w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 985 985 1" 1 67 10 17 1 'h" 3 33 3 10 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 998 1,012 Non-Residential Meters 3/ " 1 0 5 S 1" 1 67 2 3 1 ~/Z" 3 33 2 7 2" 5 33 1 5 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 2 67 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 1 77 Total 13 164 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,011 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 1,176, Total 1996 Population 2,757 Ratio-Capita/Residendal Equiv Meters 2.72 Weighted 1996 Population 2,757 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 2.50 Total 1996 Employment 410 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.73 Weighted 1996 Em to ent 410 Wei hted Meters 1,011 DFW I /132558/FRMCW09. WPS Meter Summary City• F.Ye.,t,a., Provided: w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '~ " 1 0 1,796 1,796 1" 1 67 5 8 1 'fz " 3 33 5 17 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,806 1,821 Non-Residential Meters '~" 1 0 i08 108 1" 1 67 1 2 1 'fi " 3 33 1 3 2" 5 33 10 53 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 121 176 Y Fort Worth Sewer 100, Total Meters 1,927 `Yo Fort Worth Water 29 Total Equivalent Meters 1,997 Total 1996 Population 5,800 Ratio-CapitaJResidential Equiv Meters 3 19 Weighted 1996 Population 1,682 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 3 41 Total 1996 Employment 600 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 O1 Wei bled 1996 Em to went 174 Wei bled Meters 559 DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW 10. WPS Meter Summary city; Fnrpct Till Provided: _ w ~ ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 3,567 3,567 1" 1 67 1 2 1 %2" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 2 11 3" 10 0 0 0 4„ 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Tam -- 3,570 3,580 Non-Residential Meters s~ ,. 1 0 80 80 1" 1 67 10 17 1 ~/Z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 140 746 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 230 843 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 3,800 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 4,423 Total 1996 Population 14,000 Ratio-Capita/Residentiai Equiv Meters 3 91 Weighted 1996 Population 14,000 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 0 47 Total 1996 Employment 400 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 68 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 400 Wei bled Meters 3,800 DFW 1/132558/FR2v1CW l1. WPS Meter Summary City' TXalfpm ('it3r Provided: w R vyw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '~ " 1 0 9,531 9,531 1 " 1 67 35 S8 1 'fi " 3 33 0 0 2" 5.33 1 5 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 9,567 9,594 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 893 893 1" 1.67 157 262 1 '~ " 3 33 1 3 2" 5.33 145 773 3" 10.0 S SO 4" 16 67 7 117 6" 33 33 1 33 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 1 209 2 131 Y Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 10,776 Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 11,725 Total 1996 Population 36,251 Ratio-Capita/Resident~al Equiv Meters 3 78 Weighted 1996 Population 36,251 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 5.20 Total 1996 Employment 11,075 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 36 Wei kited 1996 Em Io ment 11 07S Wei kited Meters 10 776 DFW 1/132558/FRMCWI2.WP5 Meter Summary city uactat Provided. - w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 0 348 348 1" 1 67 6 10 1 %2" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 _ 0 0 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 354 358 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 7 7 1" 1 67 2 3 1 1/Z" 3 33 1 3 2" 5 33 5 27 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16.67 2 33 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 18 83 % Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 372 % Fort Worth Water 7 Total Equivalent Meters 441 Total 1996 Population 860 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.40 Weighted 1996 Population 60 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 1 20 Total 1996 Employment 100 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.31 Wei bled 1996 Em to ent 7 Wei bled Meters 150* *Note: Haslet uses Ft. Worth water to only serve 1 customer (Alliance Airport) (10"} It serves all the customers shown above with its own well water DFW 1/ 132558/FR~ICW 13. WPS Meter Summary City• A~~ret Provided: w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '!a " 1 0 9,944 9,944 1 " 1 67 12 20 1 'k " 3.33 2 7 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total - 9,958 9,971 Non-Residential Meters ' '~d " 1 0 764 764 1" 1 67 150 251 1 '~ " 3 33 26 87 2" 5 33 88 469 3" 10.0 9 90 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 9 300 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 1046 1 961 3o Fort Worth Sewer 93/100 Total Meters 11,004 4o Fort Worth Water 90 Total Equivalent Meters 11,932 Totai 1996 Population 35,980 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 61 Weighted 1996 Population 32,382 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 8.92 Total 1996 Employment 17,485 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3.27 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 15 737 Wei hted Meters 9 904 DFWI/132558/FRMCWI4 WPS Meter Summary Clty• KPllpr Provided: w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 0 6,448 6,448 1" 1 67 38 63 1 1/z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 11 59 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 6,497 6,570 Non-Residential Meters s/ " 1 0 154 154 1" 1 67 29 48 1 i/z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 i 1 59 3" 10 0 5 50 4" 16.67 2 33 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 201 344 °/o Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 6,698 °k Fort Worth Water 98 Total Equivalent Meters 6,914 Total 1996 Population 18,813 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.86 Weighted 1996 Population 18,437 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 5 89 Total 1996 Employment 2,025 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2,81 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 1,985 Wei kited Meters 6,564 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996. DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW i 5. WPS Meter Summary Clty KPnnrrialP Provided. w ,~ ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 0 1,438 1,438 1" 1 67 67 112 1 ~/z" 3.33 7 23 2" 5 33 2 11 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,514 1,584 Non-Residential Meters s~ " 1 0 160 160 1 " 1 67 25 42 1'/z" 333 8 27 2" 5.33 25 133 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6'~ 33.33 1 33 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 194 395 Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,708 Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 1,979 Total 1996 Population 5,100 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 22 Weighted 1996 Population 0 Ratio-Jobs/IYon-Resident. Equiv Meters 3 29 Total 1996 Employment 1,300 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2 98 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 0 Wei hted Meters 0 DFW 1 / 132558/FRMCW 16. W PS Meter Summary Clty: i.akP Wnrth PrOVided. W R~ WW Residentia! Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/" 1 0 1,616 1,616 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 ~'/z" 3 33 0 0 2"" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,616 1,616 Non-Residential Meters 3~ ~r 1 0 85 p 85 1" 1 67 84 140 1 '/2" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 84 448 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" ~ 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 253 673 Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,869 % Fort Worth Water 56 Total Equivalent Meters 2,289 Total 1996 Population 5,072 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 14 Weighted 1996 Population 2,840 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 2.19 Total 1996 Employment 1,475 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.71 Wei bled 1996 Em to ent 826 Wei hted Meters 1,047 DFWI/132558/FRMCWI7 WPS Meter Summarv Cjty• Nnr±h Rirhlan~] T~illc Provided: w ~ ~yw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '~" 1 0 21,987 21,987 1 " 1 67 847 1,414 1 'k" 3 33 10 33 2" 5.33 3 16 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total - 22, 847 23,450 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 928 928 1" 1 67 169 282 1 '~" 3.33 69 230 2" 5 33 370 1,972 3" 10 0 10 100 4" 16 67 11 183 6" 33.33 2 67 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 1 559 3 762 Fort Worth Sewer 87 Total Meters 24,406 4o Fort Worth Water 76 Total Equivalent Meters 27,212 Total 1996 Population 51,714 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.21 Weighted 1996 Population 39,305 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 306 Total 1996 Employment 11,510 Ratlo-Capita/Total Meters 2.12 Wei kited 1996 Em to ment 8 748 Wei kited Meters 18 549 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW 18.WP5 Meter Summary City' Richland T~Tillq Provided: w R, ww _ Residential Meters Size Eq_uivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '.~ " 1 0 2,956 2,956 1 " 1 67 53 89 1 'k" 3.33 3 10 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 3,012 3,055 Non-Residential Meters 'k " 1 0 0 0 1" 1 67 287 479 1 '~" 3 33 3 10 2" 5.33 111 592 3" 10.0 6 60 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 407 1 141 4o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 3,419 4o Fort Worth Water 66 Total Equivalent Meters 4,196 Total 1996 Population 8,187 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.68 Weighted 1996 Population 5,403 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 65 Total 1996 Employment 5,305 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.39 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment #Moho~ i.ro~L.i.,..,.. ., e.l .. 3 501 ~ nn~ Wei hted Meters 2257 .._~~~~.. .... •wv.+ww .ia.ua.. oa 11a rJJJ DFWl/132558/FRMCWWI9 WPS Meter Summary Clty' Ca inativ Provided. w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit EQuivalent 'k " 1 0 2,490 2,490 1" 1 67 0 0 1 'fz" 3 33 0 0 2" S 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 6? 0 p 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 2,490 2,490 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 94 94 1 " 1 67 27 45 1 `~ " 3 33 1 3 2" 5.33 69 368 3" 10 0 1 IO 4" 16 67 2 33 6" 33.33 0 0 8" S3 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 194 553 5O Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 2,684 Y Fort Worth Water 93 Total Equivalent Meters 3,043 Total 1996 Population 9,300 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 73 Weighted 1996 Population 8,649 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters S 97 Total 1996 Employment 3,300 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 46 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment 3 069 Wei hted Meters 2 496 ..--.~. ........~.... ..u w.a.a..aaaw JRWI. {lJ W 177J DFW 1 /132558/FRMG'W W20. WPS Meter Summary Clty' Rancnm Park Provided: _ w R. ww Residential Meters Size E9uivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 0 1,381 1,381 1" 1 67 1 2 1 '/Z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total ~ -- 1,382 1,383 Non-Residential Meters 3/ ., 1 0 84 84 1" 1 67 9 IS 1 ~/z" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 1 5 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 94 104 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,476 % Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 1 487 Total 1996 Population 3,950 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.86 Weighted 1996 Population 0 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 6.25 Total 1996 Employment 650 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2,68 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 0 Wei bled Meters 0 DFWI/132558/FRMCWW21 WPS Meter Summary city: c„»t-,tatiP Provided: _ vv Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uant~t Q ' v Equivalent 3~ ° 1 0 964 964 1 1 67 1,565 2,614 1 '/~" 3 33 12 40 2" 5 33 4 21 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 2, 545 3 , 639 Non-Residential Meters 3~ ~~ 1 0 0 0 1" 1 67 138 230 1 '/2" 3 33 5 17 2" 5 33 30 160 3" 10 0 0 0 4„ 16.67 4 67 6„ 33 33 1 33 8" 53.33 1 53 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 179 560 % Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 2,724 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 4 199 Total 1996 Population 14,430 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 97 Weighted 1996 Population 14,430 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 9 46 Total 1996 Employment 5,295 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 5.30 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 5,295 Weighted Meters 2,724 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996. DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW22.wP5 Meter Summary Clty: Tarrant C'nnnt~ MiTil'+1 Provided. w ~. ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 0 671 671 1" 1 67 671 1,121 1 'h" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 16 85 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,358 1,877 Non-Residential Meters s~ " 1 0 0 0 1 " 1 67 73 122 1 '/2" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 73 122 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,431 % Fort Worth Water 95 Total Equivalent Meters 1 999 Total 1996 Population 5,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.66 Weighted 1996 Population 4,750 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 0 41 Total 1996 Employment 50 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 49 Wei kited 1996 Em to ent 48 Wei kited Meters 1,359 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW W23. WPS Meter Summary City• TR e _ Granrt p*~iE Provided. w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '/a" 1 0 1,378 1,378 1" 1 67 12 20 1 'k" 3.33 4 13 Z" S 33 10 S3 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 p 6" 33 33 2 67 8" S3 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Tota] -- 1,406 1,531 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 61 61 1 " 1 67 25 41 1 '~" 3.33 16 S4 2" 5 33 30 160 3" 10.0 3 30 4" 16 67 2 33 6" 33 33 0 0 8" S3 33 1 S3 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 138 432 Y Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 1,544 ~O Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 1,963 Total 1996 Population S,43S Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3.SS Weighted 1996 Population S,43S Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 6.29 Total 1996 Employment 2,717 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3.52 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 2 717 Wei hted Meters 1 544 *Meter data based on S ~O of meters for all of Grand Prairie. DFWI/132558/FRMCW24 WPS Meter Summary city' Trp~h~(;U~h Provided. w Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 'k " 1 0 1,723 1,723 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'k " 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,723 1,723 Non-Residential Meters s,~" 1 0 71 71 1 " 1 67 3 5 1 'fz" 3 33 14 47 2" 5 33 33 176 3" 10 0 15 150 4" 16 67 5 83 6" 33 33 2 67 8" 53.33 2 107 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 145 706 % Fort Worth Sewer NA Total Meters 1,868 4o Fort Worth Water 61 Total Equivalent Meters 2,429 Total 1996 Population 5,000 Ratio-Capda/Residential Equiv Meters 2.90 Weighted 1996 Population 3,050 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 96 Total 1996 Employment 3,500 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.68 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 2 135 Wei hted Meters 1 139 "~""'. ~•~+•`.•~'.+• .w.~..u.w .xaua~. cw au i»J ivi alvu-1 W1UG1A1H1 IIICICIS. DFW 1/132558/FRMCW25. WPS Meter Summary City• Watat!ga Provided: w R t~ Residential Meters Size EQUivalenc~Factor uantit Equivalent 'k " 1 0 -- 7,038 1 " 1.67 -- __ 2" 5.33 -- __ 3" 10 0 -- __ 4" 16.67 -- __ 6" 33.33 -- __ 8" 53.33 -- __ 10 76 67 -- __ Total -- -- 7,038 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 -- 171 1 " 1 67 _ __ 1 'k" 3 33 __ __ 2" 5 33 __ __ 3 " 10.0 __ __ 4" 16.67 __ __ 6" 33.33 -- __ 8" 53.33 __ __ IO" 76 67 __ __ Total - 171 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Totai Meters 7,315 ~O Fort Worth Water 76 Total Equivalent Meters 7,209 Total 1996 Population 21,275 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equ~v Meters 3 02* Weighted 1996 Population 16,169 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 7 37* Total 1996 Employment 1,260 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.91* Wei hted 1996 Em to went 958 Wei hted Meters 5 559 *Same numbers as 1993 1996 data on meters not available. DFWI/132558/FRMCw29 WPS Meter Summary Clty• WPCtl1VPT klttC Provided. W ~ Ww Residential Meters Size Eguivaiency Factor uantit Equivalent 3~ ~~ 1 ~ 12 12 1" 1 67 85 142 1 ~/z" 3 33 144 480 2" 5 33 49 261 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - 10 76 67 - Total -- 291 905 Non-Residential Meters $~ " 1 0 - 0 1 " 1 67 - 1 '/2" 3.33 - - 2" 5 33 - 3" 10 0 - 4" 16.67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - 10" 76.67 - Total - 0 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 291 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 905 Total 1996 Population 672 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 0 74 Weighted 1996 Population 672 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters - Total 1996 Employment 19 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.31 Wei hted 1996 Em to ent 19 Wei hted Meters 291 DFWI/132558/FRMCWW26 WPS Meter Summary City: ~/est~orth y'tt ~P - - Provided. w ~ vvw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent ',6 " 1 0 596 596 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'k" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 p 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 596 596 Non-Residential Meters '/ " 1 0 2 2 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'k " 3 33 0 0 2" S 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 p 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 2 2 Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 598 3o Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 598 Total 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 94 Weighted 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 1,175 Total 1996 Employment 402 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 93 Wei kited 1996 Em to went 402 Wei kited Meters 598 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996 DFWll132558/FRMCWW27 WPS ~' Meter Summary City• W}tltP CPtttp-TPht Provided: w ~ ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3~ " 1 0 4,100 4,100 1 " 1 67 50 84 1 '/:" 3 33 0 0 _ 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.b7 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 4,150 4,184 Non-Residential Meters 3~ " 1 0 100 100 1 1 67 50 84 1 1/:" 3 33 50 167 2" 5 33 75 400 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 3 50 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 278 801 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 4,428 % Fort Worth Water 42 Total Equivalent Meters 4,985 Total 1996 Population 15,500 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 70 Weighted 1996 Population 6,510 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 62 Total 1996 Employment 3,700 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 50 Wei hted 1996 Em to ent 1,554 Weighted Meters 1,860 DF1'VI/132558/FRMCWVV28. WPS -- .~. rr rr ar ,.0.4 YEAR 2006 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA YEAR 2016 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA I-'1 INDIRECT WHOLESALE CUSTOMER (BEDFORD, ~.1 DALWORTHINGTON GARDENS, WATAIJGA) ~,"`,~',~, CITIES NOT INCLUDED IN SERVICE AREA ~+~~.>~ ~ FORT WORTH AREA WASTEWATER TREATED "• • • BY TRA Exhibit E: Wastewater Service Area ~~ ~ ~ ~ e Fort Worth, Texas ^~^-~~y~~dM~ ~. ~arf®roBurgesa ~~ EXHIBIT F for Determination :..:. of~:~~npac Prepazed by CHZM HII,L April 1996 Fees ::Worth rtment PR~L~MIN~RY FOR REVIEW ONLY N,ew,~ g~'r 4 ~ ~ . Fk.~sf by ~ ~ ~'G boos CH2M HILL ~' ~~/9'~ Apnl 1996 Contents Page Executive Summary ...................... . 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 Eligible Facilities ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .4 ... ......... Treatment Plants " " " " " " " Engineenng Studies ~ ~ ~ 4 ... ~ Capacity Criteria ........................................... 8 Facility Requirements ....................................... 12 Service Unit Determination ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 19 Appendix A CIP Projects Appendix B Meter Summaries E~ec»itive Summary Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan This report contains the Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan (WWCIP) for determination of impact fees. When combined with the Carter & Burgess, Inc report titled "Land Use Assumptions -Wastewater Facilities, 1996-2016" (Land Use Assumptions) the WWCIP provides the necessary engineering calculations and~ustification for determining the maximum assessable impact fee under the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 This report updates the C1P and impact fee study update performed by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1990 and updated in 1993 by Carter and Burgess, Inc. in association with CHZM HILL. The impact fee law requires that the reports and impact fee ordinance be ,updated every three years and' the impact fee revised, if necessary The general approach to the WWCIP preparation was similar to the 1993 study As in 1993, the Fort Worth Water Department chose to exclude the wastewater collection system, lift stations, and financing costs from the WWCIP This lowered the maximum assessable fee but also significantly reduced the complexity of the WWCIP The collection system and lift stations were excluded because these are normally paid for by developers anyway Had they been included, a refund system would have been required to reimburse developers for these costs, which would greatly increase the administration costs of the impact fee program Similarly, the uncertainty regarding interest rates and sources of funds could cause refunds to be required if financing costs were included and the CIP assumptions proved incorrect. The WWCIP analyzed shat facilities will be required to serve growth between the years 1996 and 2006 Eligible facilities included in this study are the treatment plant and engineering studies. The present and future capacity of the treatment plant was analyzed based on the Fort Worth design criteria found in the 1989 Wastewater Master Plan, results of an ongoing analysis of the collection system by Freese and Nichols, system operating records over the past 10 years, and the Land Use Assumptions. The following table compares the results of the 1993 and 1996 studies 1993 1996 WWCIP Costs $34,945,030 $35,542,389 Total Equivalent Meters 36,109 34,919 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee $967 $1,017 The following items are changes made for the 1996 WWCIP along with the impact (1993 versus 1996) on the maximum assessable fee. 1 As shown in the Land Use Assumptions, population projections have been raised since the 1993 study The projects and the allocations in the CIP have been adjusted to reflect the revised population forecasts. This will have a minimal impact on the fee in this study because the excess capacity which will DFWI\I32SS8lExECSUM2.WPS 1 exist in the system once Arlington is removed will limit new capital improvement requirements. 2 It has been assumed that the City of Arlington will drop out of the system when their contract expires in the year 2001 For the purposes of calculating the impact fee, the population and meter data from the City of Arlington has been removed This raises the maximum assessable impact fee by not crediting customers who hook up to the system between now and the year 2001, when Arlington departs, with the excess capacity that Arlington's departure will make available. This method more accurately assesses growth's impact to the system and will avoid having a very small impact fee just pnor to Arlington's departure and a large one afterward This method allows the cost benefits gained through Arlington's departure to be shared between existing and new customers instead of new customers receiving all the benefits If it had been assumed that Arlington remained on the system through 2006, the impact fee would be higher than the one calculated in this study The maximum assessable impact fee fora 3/4" water meter was found to be $1,017 This fee was up from $967 in the 1993 study The pnmary reason for the increase was the elimination of Arlington from the calculations due to their projected departure from the system. The impact fee calculated in this report is the maximum assessable fee. The City of Fort Worth is legally allowed to charge any impact fee up to the maximum amount. Lower fees may be adopted to encourage growth The difference between what is required by the WWCIP and the amount collected through impact fees will need to be made up through higher wastewater rates or other sources of revenue. DFWI1132558~ExBCSi1M2.WP5 2 City of Fort Worth, Texas Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan for Determination of Impact Fees INTRODUCTION This document contains the wastewater Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for determination of impact fees for the City of Fort Worth, Texas, and calculates the maximum assessable fee. This study updates the report prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department in 1990 and the update prepared by Carter and Burgess in association with - CH2M HILL in 1993 The City of Fort Worth provides wastewater services to retail as well as a number of wholesale customers in Tarrant County as described in "Land Use Assumptions - Wastewater Facilities, 1996-2016" (I.arid Use Assumptions) The purpose of the CIP is to identify those projects which will be required to be constructed to serve new growth occumng in the Fort Worth service area between the years 1996 and 2006 Fopulation projections found in the Land Use Assumptions have been used when determining the size and quantity of new facilities. For impact fee determination purposes, those projects currently under construction, those recently completed, those listed in the "1989 Fort Worth Wastewater Master Pian" (Master Plan), and those identifier) in studies subsequent to the Master Plan have been considered for inclusion into the CIP The impact fee includes only that portion of the cost of an improvement which is directly related to new growth Those projects required to allow the system to serve present customers such as upgrades and additional treatment processes are not included except to the extent that they have excess capacity to serve future growth.. Likewise, it may be cost effective to oversize some expansion projects to take advantage of economies of scale. For impact fee purposes, however, only that portion which serves growth in the 1996-2006 study period is included The impact fee will be determined based on the number of service units projected to be added in the 10-year study penod This study assumes a 3/4-inch water meter to be the standard service unit. The water meter was selected because its hydraulic capacity is easily determined and a direct relationship exists between the amount of water used and the quantity of wastewater produced Meters larger than 3/4 inches will be assessed a higher rate based on the hydraulic capacity of the meter as described later in this report. DFW1i1325581ItPT013 WPS 3 ELIGIBLE FACILITIES The impact fee law allows all those projects which were undertaken to serve growth dunng the study penod to be included in the impact fee calculation This includes costs for the collection system, lift stations, treatment plants, customer service facilities, engineering studies and financing costs The Fort Worth Water Department has elected not to include the wastewater collection system, left stations or financing costs in the impact fee calculation This decision simplifies the calculation but lowers the total allowable fee which can be collected. The difference between the cost of a CIP project and what is collected in impact fees will need to be financed through the rate structure and paid for by all customers. There were a number of reasons for not including certain types of projects or costs in the - CIP The collection system and Iift stations were not included because the costs for most of these facilities are already borne by the developers as part of the improvements required when they plat a development. Should an impact fee which included these facilities be assessed, the contractors would be due a partial refund based on the value of the facilities they installed This would significantly increase the costs to administer the impact fee program due to the additional accounting requirements. The City would be required to audit capital improvement projects constructed by developers to venfy that an appropriate credit is being given to the developers. Finance costs were not included because of the uncertainties involved with interest rates and sources of funds on future projects Administration of the impact fee program is increased when financing costs are included since refunds may be required if interest rate or fund source assumptions are incorrect. All of those items which are being excluded from the CIP in this study (collection system, lift stations, and financing costs) were also excluded in both the 1990 and 1993 studies. The following paragraphs briefly describe the existing facilities in the Fort Worth wastewater system and lists those projects shown in the Master Plan which are eligible for consideration in the capital improvement plan Figure 1 shows the physical location for these projects. Appendix A describes each of these projects in greater detail Treatment Plants The City of Fort Worth treats its wastewater at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment PIant (WWTP) which is rated for an average flow of 144 MGD In addition, Fort Worth has contractual agreements with the Trinity River Authority (TRA) to treat wastewater from part of the Fort Worth service area at the TRA Central WWTP and the TRA Denton Creek WWTP The TRA Central Plant serves an area northeast of the Village Creek WWTP in portions of the West Fork above Mountain Creek and Walker Branch sewersheds which cannot be served by gravity from the Village Creek plant. The Denton DFWI\132SS8~RPT013 WPS 4 Creek WWTP serves those areas in far Borth Fort Worth north of the Big Bear Creek sewershed The City of Fort Worth has elected not to include the TRA plants in the impact fee calculation for three reasons. First, no contractual agreement exists between the City of Fort Worth and the Tnnity River Authonty for collection of impact fees Second, the cost of capital facilities in the TRA system has already been included in the rate structure And third, the population and employment numbers for those areas served by TRA have not been included in the Land Use Assumptions. The Village Creek WWTP has a number of projects which have recently been completed, are under construction, or are planned dunng the study period These projects can be divided up into four pnmary categories • Category A. Projects to upgrade the treatment process at the plant. These projects are constructed pnmanly to meet the needs of existing customers but there may be a small amount of excess capacity which can be assessed to future customers. • Category B. Projects related to a recently completed 24 MGD plant expansion These costs can be directly aIIocafed to growth in proportion to the amount of the facility expansion utilized by growth in the planning penod • Category C. Projects to upgrade the treatment process which serves existing customers as well as future customers through the 24 MGD expansion The costs for these projects are allocated to existing customers, study penod growth, and growth beyond 2006 in proportion to the amount of the 144 MGD capacity used • Category D. Projects to upgrade the treatment process which serve existing customers as well as those future customers through the 24 MGD expansion and an additional 17 MGD expansion The costs for these projects are allocated to existing customers, study period growth, and growth beyond the year 2006 in proportion to the amount of the 161 MGD capacity (144 MGD plus 17 MGD expansion) used DFWl\]32558UiPT013 WPS 5 S1 ~. ]3 o G 4 . i a ~ X h' k~ ~ 'i rt 4 ? ~ d : { : 3 ~ ~ ~ Y g d S ~ .. ~ d M - - v x x .. R Y x 7"' v ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ d ~ E ~ d F E ~ Y ~ d y u R ti_tt.tl ._~_._. ._- -_-_ -__- -___ ____ ._.__ __,~- .__ i - .~ = o O _~. !. / M•rY. _ ~_ Y ~~ ~ L f L a. l I ., ; .- ~ll I ~g _ 4° Q° A° ~ o V1 < n Mt~^.~ a - ' __ 111' ~ F 7 1 W ' ~ aioi~ii iioiii~i5 ~ e< ~ g ~ I ° l~ ~ ~. b p 6 rN ° '.• )~ ~ I ~ ~ W Z 'a'f' Q~p , .: f l l ° J. ~-1(f. ,J~/ l - ~~ r I = YC c. F l It ~ ~:.• b !s. _-. ,' I ~ ~ ~~" .... «...., ...,., s ~~ .......... S 1 ~ E t ~ .' ~ ...... ~~~ ( 1 Z .. .......... 1--. Lai 1. ~..:..~ ~ W ._ ..~ ~y mot.') I~~,,- . _$ ,~ i 1~ Engineering Studies There are several engineering studies which are eligible for Inclusion into the CIP The following is a brief list of the projects. • 1989 Master Plan. This comprehensive engineering report projected growth and analyzed the effect growth will have on the Fort Worth wastewater system through the year 2010 This project was required to guide the capital improvement program and ensure construction In a planned and cost-effective manner • 1999 Master Plan. This comprehensive engineering report will update and extend the 1989 Master Plan Study It will analyze the effect growth has on the Fort Worth system through the year 2020 and will guide the capital improvement program during those years • Wastewater Impact Fee Update. This engineenng report is required by law every 3 years in order to venfy that the impact fee charged new customers to the system is reasonable and proportional to their Impact on the system The original impact fee was approved In 1990 so reports during the study period will need to be performed in 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 • Village Creek Uprating Study. This comprehensive study of hydraulics and treatment efficiency at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment PIant is anticipated to show that the rated capacity of the plant can be increased by at least 15 MGD with minimal capital improvements This study, if successful, will provide additional capacity at an extremely low cost. DFWI\132558\ItP1'013 WPS 7 CAPACITY CRITERIA Treatment Plants Wastewater treatment plants are rated on their ability to treat an average flow on a three month rolling average of maximum month basis. The hydraulic capacity of a plant is generally much greater in order to be able to handle the wide daily fluctuations in wastewater flow and the fluctuations caused by heavy rainfalls In this report, all capacity cntena will be based on maximum month average flow (rated capacity) with the assumption that the actual hydraulic capacity of the plant will be higher to meet wastewater flow variations. The Master Plan estimates annual average wastewater flows based on population, employment, and groundwater infiltration The formula used is Q,~g = BWF + 65 GI Where. Qa~g = Average wastewater flow (annual average) BWF = Base wastewater flow defined as 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) plus 35 gallons per employee per day (gped) GI = Groundwater infiltration calculated as 400 gallons per acre sewered before 1986 plus 200 gallons per acre sewered after 1986 The City of Fort Worth has contracted with the engineenng firm of Freese and Nichols to analyze the City's wet weather flows to the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and recommend protects to reduce infiltration and inflow and to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows. As part of this project, Freese and Nichols has evaluated flows into the Village Creek Plant and calculated a formula for estimating flows based solely on population. The Freese and Nichols formula is. Qavo =Population (153 gallons/capita-day) This results in a considerably greater flow projection than what was predicted in the Master Plan and accounts for the above-average precipitation in the seven years since the Master Plan was completed, as well as the possible increase in flows to the plant as overflows are eliminated The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) will request that an expansion process be started any time athree-month average of maximum month flow exceeds 90% of the rated capacity of the plant. Even though extremely wet years can sometimes be discounted by the TNRCC for expansion purposes, the Village Creek plant will need to be expanded to meet the worst case conditions which can reasonably be expected DFW1t1325581RPTp13 WPS 8 We have analyzed these two methods of analyzing flow and decided to use the Master PIan method for several reasons First, this was the method used in both the 1990 and 1993 studies Second, the Freese and Nichols formula does not have a component which accounts for the decreased level of infiltration expected in a new system and may over estimate the demand based on the system by new development. Third, the Freese and Nichols numbers account for an increase in flow expected once sanitary sewer overflows are eliminated This increase should be allocated solely to existing customers and not be considered when computing the effects of growth on the system To convert the annual average flow to a three month rolling average maximum month flow, the annual average must be multiplied by a pealang factor By analyzing the last ten years of data for the Village Creek WWTP a peaking factor of 1 19 was found This figure was verified by the Freese and Nichols study The 1 19 factor was used in the CIP _ to determine the plant capacity required Based on population and employment values provided in the Land Use Assumptions, the following flows were calculated for the years 1996, 2001, and 2006 The plant will need to be expanded to serve the greater flow between year 2001 flows with Arlington and year 2006 flows without Arlington The population and employment figures in the following calculations for the year 2001 are based on straight line interpolations of growth during the study period The calculations show that the Village Creek plant, which has a current capacity of 144 MGD, has adequate capacity to meet 1996, 2001 and 2006 flows The ' need to expand the Village Creek plant may also be dependent on the results of the collection system improvements currently underway by Freese and Nichols, but any increase in capacity which is required by those improvements will be allocated to existing customers The expected flows are. 1996 Population = 818,481 x 75 gpcd = Employment = 435,581 x 35 geed = BWF = GI = (134,783 acres) (400 gal/acre) (161,200-134,783 acres) (200 gal/acre) _ GI = Q,~g = 76 6 + 65(59 2) _ Q~ ,no„~ = Q,,,g x Peaking Factor Q~ mew = 115 1 x 1 19 = 61 4 MGD 15.2 MGD 76 6 MGD 53 9 MGD 5.3 MGD 59 2 MGD 115 1 MGD 136.9 MGD DFWI\132558\itPT013 WPS 9 2001 Population = 859, 897 x 75 gpcd - 64 5 MGD Employment = 476,171 x 35 gped = 16.7 MGD BWF = 812 MGD GI = (134,783 acres) (400 gal/acre) = 53 9 MGD (171,000-134,783 acres) (200 gal/acre) = 7.2 MGD GI = 611 MGD Qe~g = 81 2 + 65 (61 1) = 120 9 MGD Q~ m~u = 120 9 x 1 19 = 143.9 MGD 2006 _ Population = 793,371 x 75 gpcd - 59 5 MGD Employment = 498,786 x 35 gped - 17.5 MGD BWF - 77 0 MGD GI = (118,650 acres) (400 gal/acre) = (158,750-118,650 acres) (200 gaI/acre) = 47 5 MGD 8 .0 MGD GI = 55 5 MGD Qa~g = 77 0 + 65 (55 5) - 113 1 MGD Q~x mew - 113 1 x 1 19 = 134.6 MGD As shown above, the plant currently has enough capacity to meet existing and future needs to the year 2006. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) rules, however, require that plant expansion planning be started whenever the peak 3-month rolling average flow exceeds 90 % of the plant's rated capacity The City of Fort Worth has exceeded this level of flow into the Village Creek plant and the TNRCC has issued a letter requiring the City to begin planning the next expansion Two options exist to meet future capacity requirements. The first is to construct the next phase of the Village Creek expansion which is scheduled to be 17 MGD and would increase the rated capacity to 161 MGD This is more than enough capacity to cover the peak flow expected in 2001 The drawback to this option is that extra capacity to meet the 90% rule is needed now and this expansion would not be online until lust prior to DFWI\132558\RPT013 WPS 10 Arlington's departure in 2001 After Arlington departs, the expansion will not be needed until well into the future. The second option is a rerating study to increase the rated capacity of the plant with minimal capital improvements. The City currently has a consultant hired to conduct this study and they expect at least a 10% increase in capacity to result. A 10% increase in capacity would be sufficient to treat flows in the peak year Since capacity gained through a rerating study is the cheapest and fastest method of plant expansion, this is the method which was assumed to be used in the impact fee study The allocation of project costs will be based on the anticipated increase in flow dunng the study period excluding Arlington The previous impact fee study included Arlington and calculated impact fees based on the facilities required to meet the peak flow penod in 2001 This method is conservative in that it credits growth which occurs after Arlington's departure with the extra capacity freed up by Arlington leaving In the 1993 study, only 2 years of growth (2002 and 2003) received this credit. In this study, (1996) five years would receive the credit (2002 through 2006) This causes the impact fee to be artificially low and not reflective of the cost of growth on the system If the 1993 allocation were to continue, this discrepancy would continue to decrease the impact fee until the year 2001, after which the impact fee would dump to approximately 1990 levels. By eliminating Arlington from the calculation, costs can be allocated fairly to the growth which causes them and result in a stable impact fee. The demand by non-Arlington customers in 1996 was calculated by Fopulation - 724,921 x 75 gpcd = 54 4 MGD Employment = 420,544 x 35 gped = 14.7 MGD BWF = 691 MGD GI = (118,650 acres) (400 gal/acre) = 47 5 MGD (141,900-118,650 acres) (200 gal/acre) = 4.7 MGD GI = 52 2 MGD Qa~g = 69 1 + 65(52 2) = 103 0 MGD Q~x m~~ = Q,,,g x Peaking Factor Q~ ~~u, = 103 0 x 1 19 = 122.6 MGD Therefore, the increase in capacity required to meet the demand caused by growth is Increased Capacity Increased Capacity Increased Capacity = 2006 demand - = 1346-1226 = 12.0 MGD 1996 demand (excluding Arlington) DFWI\132558\RPT013 WPS 11 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section justifies the projects selected for the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and allocates their cost to existing, planning penod, and beyond planning period customers. Table 1 summarizes the projects selected for the CIP and shows $35,542,389 worth of projects which can be directly attributed to growth dunng the study penod The actual project costs were used when available and Master Plan projections were used on future projects. The following paragraphs describe the allocation and justification for each of the projects Figure 2 graphically shows the allocation of the Village Creek WWTP projects by category Amore detailed description of the projects can be found in Appendix A Treatment Plants As described earlier, projects at the Village Creek WWTP can be divided into four categories. The following paragraphs describe the projects and allocation included in the CIP by category DFW1\132558\RP'T013 WPS 12 C O O O O ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ l9 ~ OOi m ~ N M 0 ~ o N t~f S 8 O ^ ~ $ m - 0 OI 10 d d M N < O O N N Pl M 10 O i f•J C) N t 0 1 A OI 0 ' ^ cD 0 (~ p O ~ 01 d d O ~D R C N ~ ~ f 7 l '1 000 < O m O N 0p f` ^ ~ Pl O O O M O OI ~- t0 10 t0 N N 01 t0 t0 O to PI N N PI 0 a c~ . c Q x ~ " ui m ^ ^ ci •- ~ W >. m U ~ G O 01 O O N O y O IO O t~ r~ 1~ f0 O O v OI a s ~ ~ 1~ 0 8 S v~ < N 0 5~ O t0 5~ ~ ~ N 0$ $ N 0 O N E S p N O O IO <O O_ 1D ^ I~ Q M N n n Q n d c0 O O d d < O O In O O c7 tC O lA M 8 d 0 Cf M 10 n A N N N O N N 0 C N O r N N 00 N r r O1 0 r M d~ M M O d 0.~ a O 00 N x rn a W rn O F'~ U . >'. OI ~ d OI d O^ N ~ W N Or IO ^ N l00 f0 M O 001 O O O N ~ v v O O m O N O O 0 v N N tn0 v O 0 ` 01 U M O ^ h Lh n N N N n aD 1 A N N O ~O d d C7 n ~ ~ ~ O D7 01 N N ~ f0 Ot n < Q O ^ ~ N M ONi 0 ^ Ol O V O O vi PI 0 01 0. m ~ ^ ^ n CO ^ ^ ^ ^ t0 .- fMO O d ~ ~ N O Q W V „'~ ^ tri d .~ O F m U ^ to d c C O 01 rn rn rn m rn rn rn LL m y m i, 0 m rn rn rn a rn~ p rn rn~ g g o1 rn rn rn a1 O m ~ 3 m o m m 10 E O ~ Q m ~ OI Q ~ LL d L C LL LL `~ ~ L LL X O U U yy 0 0 p U 0 m ~ _ 7 m ~ ~ $ ~ ao m o Za '~ m a E O U ^ ^ " ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ N ^ ~ c!1 nl ^ ~ ? co ^ Q r S O ^ c~ Q (7 (7 M N o` LL fR w O L v N N 0 N ~M- ~ Q1 m C 7 ~ N m ~ M pp N N O 0'1 N tN0 S S N d ~' N d N N .- 0 N O N ^ 07 ^ d .O ` Q ..r a c t0 , a n m m m o, m m rn o, 1c m ~ ro m m ~ ~ v1 In d o1 rn rn rn m r r m W ~ m ~ $ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ _d r .R W y 0 7 ~ O Z ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ G 4 LL ~ m > > > > O O O O > O ~ C C m m m m ' m Q X ~ .~ ? O 0 ~+ A C N N ~ M ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ Z 2 2 Z 2~ LL?? 7 0 n N ^ O o ^ C . - - ~ . ^ ~ '. .- .- .- .- ^ ^ N S S ^ d O ~ V m o O O O Obi ONi ~ ab 10 n O N N N ~ • CC' O _ O O O N V d d I~ tD 1A t0 t0 ' ^ 0 n d d 0 O tD O O O O O t'f O O e N m O 0 t 0 t9 N t 0 O O O O ^ N G a O N m N N Ol 0 N 0 N 01 N ~ ~ m O O 1 t 0 01 g~ d t0 O N _R 0 N ~- 'n. F m U .. m is 3 ; s °: o ~ ~ ~ LL s ~ 3 ~ m ~ a ~ m ~ ; ° ~ ~ a • F- p F' g LL ~ ~ ~ Q ~ _ _ Q ~ C7 ~ ~ Q C7 a a > > a a ~ ~ m ~ ¢ w w : C 7 o E v m v a w >> w °' w U w v a Q • < Q Q C1 m n. U ~ _ Q ~ _ C ~ .~ CO U ~ U m ~ ~ m~ c c c a p W m m a ~ v O c O h m o m OI m m 0 n N m w m m m m ~ O~ m m m yr Z % 2~ ~ (~ ~ ~ O V O O ~"' m E V m A N g Z W E E c c c m m ° ~ T m Q O_ U m m m m m m m m m w U m m= c -- n c m a m m > _ m m m > > _ , $ o, m = c m " m m ~ m m ' a a a a a a a a a o 0 o m m N N y n -,°, U o _ o o w w w m V ~ N C ~ 'U ~ • m n g c c c t c c c c c y u1 'N O1 °1 19 t0 19 E c ~ To °• n° c c c~ m LL 1 1 01 ~ F' ~ d 0. W m 0 ~ O C O O O O C C O O O O C C d d C O d ~ L L L a d a ~ 0. Ip x N E E E O O O L •~ •A .~ d m . u O1 0 -~ v a 0 1 m e m C C m m m m C C m m C C x x m C x C E E E ~ ~ m W 01 ~? m v m ` Q ^ O ~, G c m m N m ^ O a X a a a X X K ~ a a X x m n n w w x X m m w a m m ;~ ~ m m m of m ~ _rn o ;~ >~ m m m „1 h c c c E >~ T m m m U r o p O H v ~ a N W W W W W W W W W m m m 2 2 >. % r W f ~ M N t/1 fq (~ C7 C7 ~^ mN w •~ m m C9 m m m ~ o Of m II 0 (~ 0 0 0 0 (~ (~ V' (~ 0 0 0 o a a a` Z ~ ui m v1 ~ . O O m II ~ „ ~~~~ rn (~ (~ (~ (~ N 01 m m t0 O O O y O O U O 0 O •G O ~ V Q V N O C V Q U N N N N N N N N N y y !n Q Q V () (~ O. () Q (~ W W W W W W U O m m m Q Q Q LO 0 m U U U fD m m U U ~ 0 ~ LL CO m m @ m m ~ X 6 c 3 0 t~0 Obi N Of n 9 c m . - N V 0 8 V~ p N~ N r (y O m ~ v Q K O ~ W ]. m V F o m ~a m n ~ e `.°- ~ ~ o C N N W ~ m O~ N Q % ~D m W obi ' U F. ~, N n m N Ol n in m .m m p O m N n OI io C U f'1 N u1 c9 M Of VI m n IA -. O m m ~ N N ~ _ . Q ~ U m O F m U .- ~ c~ ~ ~ m m rn a a rn rn lL c ? a `m `m ~ ~ a m m ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ N E ~. c E U •. LL ~ ~ N N N N O L U i0 c d ~ o 'o a ~ a rn rn rn ~ rn rn d N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' m _ ~ C N ~ ~ r .- F ~ E ~ O m ~ m n o N Q ~+ m N OI . E a c « ~ ~ U -- m c _ ~ W O .a ~'" m U N 01 O p O 8 O ~ FL 70 O ~n 7 (p7 C (7 ~ N O 'o m $ g $ o rn rn o ~ v c ~ O N . - N m W ~ N M 8 0 0 0 m N n rn N n N r O N ONi fV ~ rn rn rn °f a o rn o rn U T J. o d d o 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ co of M co m v m m v r m rn C G C ~ ~ LL l1 ~ •~f m ~ ~ 8 8g $ 8 8 N ~ 1~ N ppj Oj N ~ ppj M d a ~ c 3 T d m N a fp C 3 c F= I O~ U Q e rn a k w m ~ m ~ d ~ ~ry z U ¢ ~ F o m ~ V m m a = 2~ c m o ° 2~ 2~ : : D a ~ a ` s m mwU ,U o ~ ~ :~ m ~ U m c ~~ 5 ~ w LL LL m a i a a -- E E E 2S 'n x~ m ao rn c c rn c c oe ~ ~ m m m d m m m o, a s w' rn U m m m W a To ~ ~ ~ m m m O ~ 3 3 3 w m m m ~ , , ~y~~~ ~'g`n o0 0 m ~ m in O O O`Tl ~ ~ DI ~ N 01 W p 01 ~ ~ V Oo 0 o c e c U m h o >> > ~ m rn a `~ U w w w U a U ~ ti y V r' rn E p~ N N f7 M f7 ~ O U U U ~ ~ 7 V m z m o, a a •x w m r m o ID ~ i d° m N o m _c ~ a ~ E ` a v o m :! ~ ° m m ~ i0 U a ~ LL U 'o C7 ¢ ~. m a o c W a w " c m ` w ~ ~ H c a ~i ~ o °' e m c ` m ~ m ~ n a w ~ •~ a ' m rn m o m E ~ w 'm :o _°' ~ m c '° a m 5 m o f - y Q e C o ~ U U O ' ~ m A °\ ~ o o S ~ ~ n c o ¢ Q x a c 3 D 0 N O N N w N O U ... U N ~ ~ O ~- a ~~ _~ 0 0 ++ U O a O N _O O N lC) O O N o ~ °o a~i N } (d~W) puewaa r ~ r ~ ~ ~ o Category A -Primarily for Existing Flows These projects are each allocated based on the percent of construction cost eligible for EPA grant money plus the percent of the additional capacity used by existing, study period, and beyond year 2006 customers. The costs greater than the EPA grant amount are allocated as follows for each of the Category A projects Study Period = (134 6 - 122 6) _ 24 - 50 0% Existing = Remaining Costs = 100-50 0 = 50 0 Sludge Only Landfill. This project provides solids handling and disposal capabilities through 2010 The U S EPA made grant funds available for that portion of this project attributed to the 120 MGD plant. The EPA grant covered 92 7% of the construction costs The remaining 7 3 % is allocated to the study penod by growth's proportion of the 24 MGD expansion 2 Digesters and Thickeners. This project provides sludge stabilization facilities and improved thickeners The U S EPA made grant funds available for that portion of this project attributed to the 120 MGD plant. The EPA grant covered 92 0% of the construction costs. The remaining 8 % is allocated to the study penod by growth's proportion of the 24 MGD expansion 3 Intermediate Pipelines. This project installed the pipelines to connect the new sludge landfill with the treatment plant. The U S EPA made grant funds available for that portion of this project attributed to the 120 MGD plant. The EPA grant covered 87.7% of construction costs The remaining 12 3% is allocated to the study penod by growth's proportion of the 24 MGD expansion Category B - 24 MGD Expansion to Meet Future .Flows The projects in Category B are all associated with expanding the rated capacity of the Village Creek plant from 120 MGD to 144 MGD With the exception of project No 4 (Solids Area Expansion), all of the projects are allocated to the study period by growth's proportion of the 24 MGD expansion (12.0 _ 24 = SO 0%) The Solids Area Expansion is designed for flows beyond the 24 MGD expansion Only one-third of this 72 MGD project is required to serve the 24 MGD expansion Costs for this project are allocated 16 7% (12 0 MGD growth :- 72 MGD) to the study period, 3 6% ((122 6 - 120 MGD) 72 MGD) to existing capacity, and the remainder to growth beyond the study period The engineering and construction management phases of each project will be allocated in the same proportion as the construction The projects required for the 24 MGD expansion are. Filter Area and Chlorination, II-A Aeration Area, II-B DFW11132558112PT013 WPS 16 • Primary Area, II-C • Solids Area, III-B • Digester Heating, IV-C1 • Control System (Phase I), IV-DI • Primary Effluent Pumps, IV-F Category C -Expansion to Meet Existing and 144 MGD Flow The protects in Category C are all improvements to the plant which will serve the existing customers plus future customers through the expansion to 144 MGD Costs for these projects are allocated in proportion to the amount of the 144 MGD capacity utilized Study period customers are allocated 8 3 % (12 0 MGD - 144 MGD), existing customers are allocated 85 1 % (122 6 MGD _ 144 MGD), and customers beyond the study period - are allocated the remainder The engineering and construction management phases of each protect are allocated in the same proportion as the construction The Category C protects are. • Electncal System Improvements, IV-B • Electncal Generation Expansion, IV-B2 • Control System (Phase II), IV-D2 • Energy Management, IV-C3 Category D -Expansion to Meet Existing and 161 MGD Flow The protect in Category D is a sludge processing facility This improvement to the plant will serve the existing customers plus future customers through the planned expansion to 161 MGD The cost for this protect is allocated in proportion to the amount of the 161 MGD capacity utilized Existing customers are allocated 76 1 % (122 6 MGD :- 161 MGD), study penod customers are allocated 7,5% (12 0 _ 161 MGD), and customers beyond year 2006 are allocated 16.4 % (26 4 MGD _ 161 MGD) The construction management phase of this project is allocated in the same proportion as the construction Category E -Engineering Studies There are three studies which have been included in the impact fee calculation They are. 1 1989 Master PIan -This study was required to guide the capital improvements program and ensure construction in a planned and cost effective manner The master plan covered the years 1990 to 2010 but master plans are typically updated every 10 years. The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule. Six years (1990-1996) or 60% of the cost has been allocated to existing customers Four years (1996-2000) or 40% of the cost has been allocated to the study penod The DFW11132558~RP1'013 WPS 17 total cost shown is half the overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the water impact fee. 2 1999 Master Plan -This study is allocated in the same manner as the 1989 Master Plan Six years (2000 - 2006) or 60 % has been allocated to the study period Four years (2006 - 2010) or 40 % is allocated to growth beyond the year 2006 The total cost shown is half the overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the water impact fee. 3 Impact Fee Study -This study is required by statute every three years to update the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the effect growth has on the system The cost for four impact fee studies (1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005) are allocated entirely to the study penod The total cost shown is half the - overall project cost with the other half being assessed in the water impact fee. 4 Uprating Study -This study is currently underway and anticipates showing that the rated capacity of the Village Creek WW'TP can be increased with minimal capital improvements. The allocation of treatment plant expansion costs assumed that the study will be successful and minimal capital improvements will be required to meet the peak flow year of 2001 just pnor to Arlington's departure. The uprating will result in significantly lower costs to meet the 2001 peak. Since the allocation of project costs has assumed Arlington to no longer be a customer, the capacity provided by the uprating study is not required until after the study period Therefore, all the costs for this study and any capital improvements have been allocated to future customers even though the study is required currently by TNRCC's 90% rule to meet the demands including Arlington DFWI\132558\RPT'013 WPS 18 SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION The equivalent meter has been selected as the method to measure consumption by new growth for impact fee purposes. As stated earlier, the water meter will serve as the service unit for both water and wastewater impact fee calculations. The equivalent meter is defined as the unit equivalent to the hydraulic capacity of a 3/4-inch water meter The 3/4-inch water meter was selected because it represents the size water meter for an average single family home. Other size meters are represented by a number of equivalent meters through multiplication by an equivalency factor based on the hydraulic capacity of the meter Table 2 shows the equivalency factors used in this study for meters of vanous sizes. The total number of meters in the Fort Worth service area is provided in Appendix B This meter information is broken down by type (residential or non- residential) and size, and by whether the meter is serviced by the City of Fort Worth or serviced by a wholesale customer The appendix also summarizes the data for all the wholesale customers. The remaining pages break down the meter data by wholesale customer In nearly all cases, the wholesale customer was the source of meter information Once the number of equivalent meters has been determined, the next task is to calculate the number of people represented by a residential meter and the number of fobs represented by anon-residential meter This calculation was performed for the City of Fort Worth alone and for the wholesale customers as a group in order to get better accuracy in comparing population or employment changes to number of meters. Since the City of Arlington was not included in determining the required system capacities, they have also not been included in the meter calculations The results for the present (1996) system are Fort Worth Onlv a. Number of Equivalent Meters b Population c. Employment Residential 140,363 471,149 3 36 Non- Residential 50,815 370,155 Population per Equivalent Meter (b/a) _ Employment per Equivalent Meter (c/a) _ Wholesale Customers (Excluding Arlington) a. Number of Equivalent Meters b Population c. Employment Population per Equivalent Meter (b/a) _ Employment per Equivalent Meter (c/a) _ 7 28 Non- Residential Residential 102,424 15,860 281,919 -- -- 76, 892 2 75 -- 4 85 DFWI\132558\RPT013 WPS 19 TABLE 2 EQUIVALENT METER TABLE ACTUAL METER SIZE (inches) EQUIVALENCY FACTOR 5/8 or 3/4 1 0 1 1 67 1'/2 3 33 2 5 33 3 10 0 4 16 67 6 33 33 8 53 33 10 76 67 Source. Amencan Water Works Assoclatlon, Manual of Water Supply Practices No M6, "Water Meters - Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance" DFWI\132558\RPT013 WPS 20 Using the ratios determined above, the next step is to determine the increase in service units caused by growth in population and employment. When computing the population and employment changes for the wholesale customers, Arlington has not been included Using population and employment projections found in the Land Use Assumptions, the estimated number of additional equivalent meters can be calculated as follows Fort Worth Residential - (Population Change) _ 3 36 _ (478,908 - 452,363) _ 3 36 = 7,900 Non-Residential = (Employment Change) _ 7 28 (406, 874 - 343, 652) - 7 28 = 8, 684 Wholesale Customers Residential = (Population Change) _ 2 75 _ (314,463 - 272,558) _ 2 75 = 15,238 Non-Residential = (Employment Change) - 4 85 _ (91,912 - 76,892) ~ 4 85 = 3.097 Increase in Equivalent Meters = 34,919 The final step in determining the maximum assessable impact fee is to divide the total costs included in the CIP (See Table 1) by the increase in equivalent meters. This calculation yields the impact fee assessable per equivalent meter (3/4-inch size) The fee for other size meters will equal the fee fora 3/4-inch meter times the equivalency factor found in Table 2 The maximum assessable impact fee is calculated as. Maximum Impact Fee - (CIP cost) _ (Increase in Equivalent Meters) - $35,542,389 ~ 34,919 Maximum Impact Fee = $1,017 per equivalent unit This impact fee underestimates the actual cost of providing service to new customers of the Fort Worth Water System The underestimate is caused by the City's decision not to include the wastewater collection system lift stations and financing costs in the CIP as discussed earlier in this report. If these were to be included, the maximum assessable fee would be increased DF'Wl\I32558\RPTO[3 WPS 21 The City of Fort Worth is legally allowed to charge any impact fee as long as it does not exceed the maximum assessable fee. A lower fee can be adopted to encourage growth, however, the difference between what is required by the CIP and the amount collected in impact fees would need to be made up through higher wastewater rates to existing customers or other revenue sources. DFWI\132558\RPT013 WPS 22 Appendix A Appendix A CIP Projects CATEGORY A. IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET PRESENT FLOWS Project Title: Sludge only Landfill, 1-B-1 Description. The 156-acre landfill and solids processing area provides capacity to bury dewatered sludge through year 2010 The area surrounded by the levee also provides a location for the sludge processing facility The new landfill is sealed from exfiltration by a clay slurry curtain wall and the underlying impermeable strata. Purpose The existing sludge drying beds are an inexpensive and effective way to dry the digested sludge. However, the area is too small and unreliable in wet weather for the projected plant flows. Allocation Costs to existing plant determined by percent eligible for EPA Grant Funds (92 7% of construction costs) Costs to 1996 to 2006 period based on percentage of 24 MGD expansion applied to planning period (50 0% of remaining costs) Remaining costs applied to existing customers Status. Construction is complete Project Title: Digesters and Thickeners, 1-B-2 Descnption Four dissolved air flotation thickeners replaced the gravity sludge thickener and centrifuges. Four digesters and a blend tank provide for sludge stabilization Purpose. The four sludge thickeners concentrate the waste activated sludge prior to digestion The sludge is mixed with pnmary sludge in a blend tank and distributed to the anaerobic digesters for fermentation The four additional digesters provide sufficient detention time for complete reduction of the organic compounds An existing gravity thickener was converted to a final clarifier, thereby adding capacity to the activated sludge system Allocation. Costs to existing plant determined by percent eligible for EPA Grant Funds (92 0% of construction costs) Costs to 1996 to 2006 period based on percentage of 24 MGD expansion applied to planning period (50 0% of remaining costs) Remaining costs applied to existing customers Status Construction is complete. DFWl\132558\RP'I'002.WP5 23 Project Title. Intermediate Pipeline, 1-B-3 Descnption Four pipelines linking the treatment plant with the sludge only landfill Conversion of existing pipelines to the sludge drying beds. Purpose: Pipelines are required to transport the stabilized sludge from the plant to the sludge only landfill and to return the sidestream from the sludge processing facility and working disposal area. Piping modifications were required in the existing sludge drying beds to accommodate revised piping Allocation Costs to existing plant determined by percent eligible for EPA Grant Funds (87 7 % of construction costs) Costs to 1996 to 2006 period based on percentage of 24 MGD expansion applied to planning period (50 0% of remaining - costs) Remaining costs applied to existing customers Status Pipelines were completed in 1989 CATEGORY B. EXPANSION TO MEET FUTURE FLOWS Project Title. Filter Area and Chlorination, II-A Descnption Project includes the construction of continuous backwash filters, a new chlorination facility, chlorine contact basins, and expansion of the existing chlorine contact basins. Furpose• The result is a greatly enhanced ability to filter the clarifier effluent and an improved ability to discharge low-turbidity effluent dunng wet weather periods Allocation All costs allocated to 24 MGD expansion Planning period costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs. Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or 10 8% of the costs Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning period Status. Construction is complete. Project Title. Aeration Area, II-B Description The construction consists of two large aeration basins, three final clarifiers and a dechlorination facility, Purpose. The aeration basins and clanfiers extract the organic matter from the sewage and reduce the oxygen demand on river The dechlorination facility was added to the project to meet the new standard for discharging anon-chlorinated effluent. Allocation All cost allocated to 24 MGD expansion Planning period costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs. Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or DFWI\132558\RPI'002.Wp5 24 10 8 % of the costs Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning penod Status Construction is complete. Project Title. Control System (Phase n >v-D1 Descnption. The existing central control system was replaced with a modern distributed process control and information management system The first phase establishes control over the Phase II-A Project and the entire solids handling system It also establishes costs for the remainder of the equipment necessary to finish the conversion - Purpose: The existing control system was installed in 1975 It has suffered severe corrosion since construction, is now at capacity, and is difficult to maintain The new system employs a distributed processing system for improved reliability and expendability Allocation All costs allocated to 24 MGD expansion Planning penod costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs. Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or 10 8 % of the costs. Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning period Status Construction is complete. Project Title. Auxiliary Heating Facility, N-C1 Description The existing gas fired boiler was moved from the Engine/Blower Building to the digester area and installed in a temporary building Purpose: The boiler is required to provide heat to the four new digesters Allocation All costs allocated to 24 MGD expansion Planning period costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs. Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or 10 8 % of the costs. Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning period Status. Construction is complete. Project Title. Primary Effluent Pump Upgrade, TV-F Description Addition of primary effluent pumps revision of wet wells, and improvement to storm water pumping and electrical feeds. Purpose. Pnmary pump stations are unable to pump all of the projected wet weather flows to secondary area, leading to possibility of flooding in primary treatment area. DFW 1 \ 1325581RPT002. WPS 25 Allocation All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion Planning penod costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or 10 8% of the costs. Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning penod The construction and construction management costs for this project have been combined with Project II-C The engineenng portion was kept separate. Status. Under construction with Project II-C Project Title: Primary Area Expansion, II-C Descnption Construction of two additional primary clanfiers, additional effluent pumping capacity, influent bar screens, and an influent line will provide solids - separation capacity as the sewage enters the plant. Purpose. Increased flows require capacity expansion of the pnmary area to effectively remove the settleable sludge and pump the flows to the expanded secondary area. Allocation All costs allocated to 24 MGD expansion Planning period costs are 50 0% (12 0/24) of costs Existing customers are allocated (122 6-120)/24 or 10 8 % of the costs. Remaining costs allocated to future customers beyond the planning penod Status Under Construction Project Title. Solids Area Expansion, III-B Descnption Increase the solids treatment capacity by adding four to six digesters and possible additional secondary sludge thickeners. Purpose: Increased solids loading due to increased primary sludge and secondary sludge requires additional heated anaerobic digester space to adequately reduce the organic material and make it suitable for dewatenng and landfilling Additional dissolved air flotation thickeners may be necessary to condense the secondary sludge pnor to digestion Allocation This project consists of adding six digesters only two of which are required for this expansion If two digesters are required to serve this expansion (24 MGD) then the six digesters should serve 72 MGD, The costs were allocated 3 6% to existing ([122.6 MGD - 120 MGD) _ 72), 16 7% to study period (12 0 MGD - 72), and the remainder to after the study penod Status. Planning DFWi\t32558\Ri'i'002.WP5 26 CATEGORY C. EXPANSION TO MEET PRESENT AND 144 MGD FLOW Allocation Improvements to the existing plant which will also serve the 24 MGD expansion facilities Planning period costs are 8 3% (12 0/144) of the total costs Existing customers are allocated 85 1 % (122 6 MGD ~ 144 MGD) and remaining costs are allocated to future customers. Project Title: Electrical System Improvements, IV-B Description The original 2400-volt feeders in the primary area replaced with a high-voltage system Replaced engine/generator control and switching systems. Provided synchronization gear Purpose. The pnmary electric distribution system at the plant was badly in need of upgrading Improvements in generator controls and switching allows more efficient utilization of plant-generated power Generated power frequency matches utility power and allows shared use of feeders and improved efficiency Allocation Category C standard (85 1 % present and 8 3 % to planning period) Status. Construction is complete. Project Title: Control System (Phase IT), IV-DZ Description Phase II will utilize the equipment selected in Phase I, and will include software development and installation of the remainder of the control system to provide centralized control of the entire plant. Allocation Category C standard (85 1 % present and 8 3 % to planning penod) Purpose: Project will replace existing computer control system Status. Completed Project Title. Energy Management, IV-C3 Descnption Constructed a methane and natural gas boiler facility in the digester area. Installed hot-water supply lines and engine heat exchangers. Installed a gas compressor facility and storage sphere. Purpose. Digesters must be maintained at 90-95 °F to effectively stabilize the sludge. The existing heating system used jacket heat from the engines. Mechanical breakdowns in winter and potential hot water line failure made it necessary to provide an alternate source of heat for the enrire digester area. The gas compression and storage facilities are required to effectively utilize the methane gas produced in the additional digesters and improve the utilization of the gas from the existing digesters. The heating facility was constructed in the 91-92 DFW 1\132558\RPT002.WP5 2'~ fiscal year to provide heat to all the digesters so that the engines can be repaired without lowering the digester's temperatures Allocation Category C standard (85 1 % present and 8 3 % to planning period) Status. Construction complete Project Title. Electrical Generation Expansion, IV-B2 Description Expansion of the energy recovery capacity of the plant by adding. large engine-driven generators. Purpose. Generators will utilize the methane generated by the digesters to power engines and dnve generators which will provide power to the plant electrical distribution system Waste heat from the exhaust gases and the packet water will be used to heat the digesters. Allocation Category C standard (85 1 % present and 8 3 % to planning penod) Status. Planning stage. CATEGORY D. EXPANSION TO MEET EXISTING AND FUTURE FLOWS Project Title. Sludge Processing Facility, I-B-4 Descnption• Facility includes sludge storage tanks, press areas, loading areas, chemical storage and feeding area, and support facilities The sludge drying facility will be located in the sludge only landfill area. Purpose. Increased flows and improved solids separation generate sludge which must be concentrated prior to landfilling or land application Allocation Improvements to the existing plant which will also service the 24 MGD Phase II expansion and the 17 MGD Phase III expansion Cost allocated to present facilities is based on the ratio of present capacity utilized (122 6 MGD) to future capacity for which the project was designed (161 MGD) or 76 1 % The cost allocated to the planning penod is 12 0 MGD/ 161 MGD, or 7 5 % The remainder is allocated to growth after the year 2006 Status. Completed DFLVl\132558\RPT'002.WP5 28 CATEGORY E. ENGINEERING STUDIES Project Title. 1989 Wastewater Master Plan Descnption The wastewater master plan projects the collection system flows and needs through year 2010 Allocation The wastewater master plan study covered the planning penod from year 1990 through year 2010 but is expected to be updated every 10 years The CIP covers the period 1996 through 2006 The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule. Six years (1990-1996) or 60% of the cost has been allocated to existing customers. The remaining four years (2006-2010) or 40 % of the cost has been allocated to the study period Status. Complete. Project Title. 1999 Wastewater Master Plan Description This wastewater master plan update will project the system flows and needs for the years 2000 through 2020 Allocation This wastewater master plan will cover the planning period from the year 2000 through the year 2020 but is expected to be updated after 10 years The CIP covers the penod 1996 through 2006 The cost has been allocated based on the 10 year update schedule Six years (2000-2006) or 60% of the cost has been allocated to the study penod The remaining four years (2006 - 2010) or 40 % of the cost has been allocated to growth beyond yeax 2006 Status. Planned Project Title: Impact Fee Update Descnption An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowed fee which can be assessed Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every three years. Allocation 100 percent of the cost for studies in the years 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 can be allocated to the planning penod Status. On-going DFW1\132558\RPT002.WP5 29 Project Title. Uprating Study Descnption A comprehensive engineenng evaluation of the Village Creek WWTP to determine if the rated capacity of the plant can be increased with minimal capital improvements. Purpose. To delay the need for capital improvements by increasing the rated capacity of existing units. Allocation 100 percent of the cost to future growth beyond the study period Status. Under way DFwl\132558\RPT002.WP5 30 Appendix B Meter Summary city' Fnrt Wnrrh PCOVided: W R WW Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '~ " 1 0 112, 861 112, 861 1" 1.67 11,716 19,566 1 '~" 3.33 1,591 5,298 2" 5 33 495 2,638 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 126,663 140,363 Non-Residential Meters 'k" i 0 6,766 6,766 1" 1 67 2,145 3,582 1 '~" 3 33 1,553 5,171 2" 5.33 3,754 20,009 3" 10 0 288 2,880 4" 16 67 241 4,017 6" 33 33 129 4,300 8" 53 33 35 1,867 10" 76 67 29 2,223 Total 14,940 50, 815 ~O Fort Worth Sewer"' 96.0/92.8 Tota( Meters 141,603 4o Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equ-valent Meters 191 178 Total 1996 Population 471,149 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 36 Weighted 1996 Population 452,363 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 7 28 Total 1996 Employment 370,155 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 32 Wei bled 1996 Em to ment 343,652 Wei bled Meters 135,460 *Reflects those on septic tanks & private services ~ 4o Pop/ 3o Employment DFW1/132558/FRMCWW01 wP5 Meter Summary City: WhnlPCalP.("i~c~mrrc* Provided: ~/ Residential Meters Size E_guivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'fi " 3 33 -- -- 2" 5.33 -- -- 3 " 10.0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10 76.67 -- -- Total -- - 102,425 Non-Residential Meters 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'k" 3 33 -- -- 2" 5 33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33.33 - -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10" 76 67 -- -- Total -- 15, 866 Y Fort Worth Sewer' 96 7/100 Total Meters 98,859 Y Fort Worth Water NA Total Equivalent Meters 118,290 Total 1996 Population 281,919 Ratio-Capita/Resident~al Equiv Meters 2.75 Weighted 1996 Population 272,558 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 85 Total 1996 Employment 76,892 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.85 Wei bled 1996 Em to went 76,892 Wei bled Meters 94,539 *Excluding Arlington ' `Yo Pop/ 3o Emp DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW W02, WPS Meter Summary City• Benhroo~ Provided. w ~ wtu Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ',6 " 1 0 5,347 5,347 1" 1.67 1,175 1,962 1 'fi " 3.33 3 10 2" 5.33 13 69 3" 10 0 - - 4" 1b.67 - - 6" 33.33 - - 8" 53.33 - - 10 76 67 - - Total -- 6,538 7,388 Non-Residential Meters '/ " 1 0 77 77 1 " 1 67 43 72 1 'k" 3 33 13 43 2" 5 33 77 410 3" 10.0 16 160 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53.33 - - 10" 76.67 - - Total 226 762 Y Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 6,764 Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 8,150 Total 199b Population 20,197 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.73 Weighted 1996 Population 20,197 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 61 Total 1996 Employment 3,510 Ratio-Cap~ta/Total Meters 2.99 Wei hted 1996 Em to meat 3 510 Wei hted Meters 6 763 DFWI/132558/FRMCWW03 WPS Meter Summary Clty: Rhiamnnnrt Provided. ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent 3~" 1 0 755 755 1" 1 67 - - 1 %z" 3.33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10 76 67 - - Ta~ -- 755 755 Non-Residential Meters '/a" 1 0 21 21 1" 1 67 - - 1 ~/z" 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10" 76 67 - - Total 21 21 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 776 % Fort Worth Water NA Total Equivalent Meters 776 Total 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 11 Weighted 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 15 00 Total 1996 Employment 315 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 03 Wei hied 1996 Em to ent 315 Wei hied Meters 776 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996 DF1L't /132558/FRMCW WOB. WPS Meter Summary c;ty• Rnrlvcpn Provided. u/ ~ yyw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Eauivalent '/a " 1 0 5,582 5,582 1" 1 67 16 27 1 'k " 3.33 2 7 2" 5 33 2 11 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 5, 602 5, 627 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 341 341 1" 1 67 70 117 1 'fi" 3 33 52 173 2" 5.33 62 330 3" 10.0 10 100 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 535 1 061 3o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 6,137 ~O Fort Worth Water 98 Total Equivalent Meters 6,688 Total 1996 Population 17,991 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3.20 Weighted 1996 Population 17,991 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 8.13 Total 1996 Employment 8,624 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.93 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 8 624 Wei hted Meters 6 137 DFWl/132558/FRMCWWOS WPS Meter Summary C~ty• C'rAW~P~ Provided. W ~ Uyw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 2,300 2,300 1" 1 67 20 33 1 %" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 11 59 3" 10 0 0 0 4" I6 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 p 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 2,331 2,392 Non-Residential Meters 3/a " 1 0 60 60 1" 1 67 0 0 1 %2" 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 5 27 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16.67 3 50 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 69 147 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 2,400 % Fort Worth Water 86 Total Equivalent Meters 2,539 Total 1996 Population 7,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.93 Weighted 1996 Population '1,000 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 11 29 Total 1996 Employment 1,660 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.92 Wei hted 1996 Em to ent 1,660 Weighted Meters 2,400 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996 DFW 1 /132558/FRMC W06. WPS Meter Summary City; ilatwnrthingtnn (~arrlanc Provided. w/W~7 Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent 3i ° l 0 811 811 1 " 1 67 - - 1 %2" 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10 76.67 - - Total -- 811 811 Non-Residential Meters '/<" 1 0 - - 1" 1 67 - - 1 %" 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - - 3" 10 0 , - - 4" 16.67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10" 76 67 - - Total - % Fort Worth Sewer 90 Total Meters 811 % Fort Worth Water 46 Total Equivalent Meters 811 Total 1996 Population 2,117 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.61 Weighted 1996 Population 1,905 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters - Tota1 1996 Employment 995 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.61 Weighted 1996 Em to ent 995 Wei hted Meters 730 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996 DfWI/132558/FRMCWW07 WPS. Meter Summary City• Eagecl;ff V;llaa Provided. w & ~ Residential Meters Size Eauivalency Factor uantit Eauiyatent '/a " 1 0 985 985 1" 1 67 10 17 1 'fz " 3.33 3 10 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 998 1,012 Non-Residential Meters '.6 " 1 0 5 5 1 " 1.67 2 3 1 'fi " 3 33 2 7 2" 5 33 1 5 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 2 67 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 1 77 Total 13 164 9o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,011 4o Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 1,176 Total 1996 Population 2,757 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.72 Weighted 1996 Population 2,757 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 2.50 Total 1996 Employment 410 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.73 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 410 Wei hted Meters 1 011 DFWl/132558/FRM(,'WW09 WPS Meter Summary Clty' _ FVPrman Provided: w -~ wur Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit * Equivalent '~ " 1 0 1,796 1,79b 1 " 1 67 5 Q 4o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,927 Y Fort Worth Water 43 Total Equivalent Meters 1 997 Total 1996 Population 5,800 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 19 Weighted 1996 Population 5,800 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 3 41 Total 1996 Employment 600 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 Ol Wei kited 1996 Em to went 600 Wei kited Meters 1 927 DF W 1 / 132558/FRMCLV W 10. WPS Meter Summary Clty' ripr~f Aill Provided. w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Eguiyalent ',4 " 1 0 3,567 3,567 1" 167 1 2 1'fi" 333 0 0 2" 5 33 2 11 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 3,570 3,580 Non-Residential Meters '.6 " 1 0 80 80 1" 1 67 10 17 1 'fi" 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 140 746 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 230 843 4o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 3,800 Y Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 4,423 Total 1996 Population 14,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 91 Weighted 1996 Population 14,000 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 0.47 Total 1996 Employment 400 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 68 Wei bled 1996 Em to went 400 Wei bled Meters 3 800 DFWI/132558/FRMCWWll WPS Meter Summary city' Naltpm (,~t7 Provided. w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Eauivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ~/a " 1 0 9, 531 9, 531 1" 1 67 35 58 1 'fi " 3.33 0 0 2" 5 33 1 5 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total - 9,567 9,594 Non-Residential Meters ',6 " 1 0 893 893 1" 1 67 157 262 1'fi" 333 1 3 2" 5 33 145 773 3" 10 0 5 50 4" 16 67 7 117 6" 33 33 1 33 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 1 209 2 131 3o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 10,776 3o Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 11,725 Total 1996 Population 36,251 Ratio-Cap-ta/Residential Equiv Meters 3 78 Weighted 1996 Population 36,251 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 5 20 Total 1996 Employment 11,075 Ratio-Capita/1'otal Meters 3 36 Wel hted 1996 Em to ment 11 075 Wei hted Meters 10 776 DFW l /132558/FRMCW W 12. WPS Meter Summary Clty• Nnrct Provided. w ~ ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent s~ ~~ 1 0 9,944 9,944 1 " 167 12 20 1 '/z " 3.33 2 7 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 9,958 9,971 Non-Residential Meters s/, " 1 0 764 764 1" 1 67 150 251 1 '/z" 3 33 26 87 2" 5 33 88 469 3 " 10 0 9 90 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 9 300 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 1,046 I , 961 Fort Worth Sewer' 62/67 Total Meters 11,004 % Fort Worth Water 93 Total Equivalent Meters 11,932 Total 1996 Population 35,980 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 61 Weighted 1996 Population 22,388 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident Equiv Meters 8 92 Total 1996 Employment 17,485 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 27 Wei hted 1996 Em to ment „ Ann/ _ >~..,..1...,...a.,. 11,657 Weighted Meters 6,874 r. ,.. .,.,...r,.,,~ ....,... DFWI/132558/FFiI~1CWW14 WPS Meter Summary Clty KannarlalP Provided. W ~ Ww Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantity Equivalent 3/a " 1 0 1,438 1,438 1" 1 67 67 112 11/z " 3.33 7 23 2" 5 33 2 1 I 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,514 I ,584 Non-Residential Meters '~ " 1 0 160 160 I " 1 67 25 42 I ~/z" 3.33 8 27 2" 5 33 25 233 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 1 33 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 194 395 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,708 Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 1,979 Total 1996 Population 5,100 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 22 Weighted 1996 Population 5,100 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 3 29 Total 1996 Employment 1,300 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2 98 Weighted 1996 Em to ment 1,300 Weighted Meters 1,708 DFW ]/]32558/FRMC W~V 16.WP5 Meter Summary clty' i.alrP Wnrth Provided. W ~ ww Residential Meters Size Eguiyalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3,4 " 1 0 1,616 1,616 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'k" 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1, 616 1,616 Non-Residential Meters ',6 " 1 0 85 85 1" 1 67 84 140 1 'k" 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 84 448 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 253 673 ~O Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,869 `Y Fort Worth Water 56 Total Equivalent Meters 2,289 Total 199b Population 5,072 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 14 Weighted 1996 Population 5,072 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 2.19 Total 1996 Employment 1,475 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.71 Wei hted 1996 Em Io ment 1 475 Wei hted Meters 1 869 DFWl/132558/FRMCWWI7 WPS Meter Summarv Cjty• Nnrth Ri~hlanrl Aillc Provided: w R t~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3,4 " 1 0 21,987 21,987 1" 1 67 847 1,414 1 'fz " 3 33 10 33 2" 5 33 3 16 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total - 22,847 23,450 Non-Residential Meters '/ " 1 0 928 928 1" 1 67 169 282 1 'fi" 3.33 69 230 2" 5.33 370 1,972 3" 10.0 10 100 4" 16.67 11 183 6" 33.33 2 67 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 1 559 3 762 ~O Fort Worth Sewer' 65/67 Total Meters 24,406 `Yo Fort Worth Water 76 Total Equivalent Meters 27,212 Total 1996 Population 51,714 Ratio-Capita/Residentlal Equlv Meters 2.21 Weighted 1996 Population 33,728 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 3 06 Total 1996 Employment 11,510 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.12 Wel hted 1996 Em to ment 7 674 Wei hted Meters 15 895 7'o rop/ ~ ~mploymen[ DFW 1/132558/FRMCW W 18.WP5 Meter Summary city• l~nt~ Provided: tutu Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 'k " 1 0 795 795 i" 1 67 7 12 1 'f~" 3.33 - -- 2" 5.33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10 76 67 -- -- Total -- 802 807 Non-Residential Meters ',~ " 1 0 210 210 i" 1 67 66 110 1 'k" 3 33 17 57 2" 5 33 23 123 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16 67 2 33 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10" 76 67 -- Total 319 543 g'o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,121 4o Fort Worth Water NA Total Equivalent Meters 1,350 Total 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Cap:ta/Residential Equiv Meters 2.91 Weighted 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident: Equiv Meters 2.59 Total 1996 Employment 1,407 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.10 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 1 407 Wei hted Meters 1. 121 DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW30. WPS Meter Summary ('jt3r• Rirhlanrl Hi(~ Provided: w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ~,k " 1 0 2,956 2,956 1 " 1 67 53 89 1 'fz " 3 33 3 10 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 3,012 3,055 Non-Residential Meters '.6 " 1 0 0 0 1" 1 67 287 479 i 'fi " 3 33 3 10 2" 5.33 111 592 3" 10 0 6 60 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" '76 67 0 0 Total 407 1 141 `Y Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 3,419 ~O Fort Worth Water 66 Total Equivalent Meters 4,196 Total 1996 Population 8,187 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equ~v Meters 2.68 Weighted 1996 Population 8,187 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 65 Total 1996 Employment 5,305 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.39 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 5 305 Wei bled Meters 3 419 ivle~er oreaKaown assumes same as m lyys DFWl/132558/FRMCWI9 WPS Meter Summary Clty• Rivar (lake Provided. ~,y Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '~ ~~ 1 0 2,500 2,500 1" 1 67 29 48 1 %:" 3 33 4 13 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 2,533 2, 561 Non-Residential Meters 3~ ~~ 1 0 127 127 1" 1 67 14 23 1 'h" 3 33 16 53 2" 5 33 15 80 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 1 17 6" 33 33 1 33 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 T0~ 174 333 Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 2,707 % Fort Worth Water NA Total Equivalent Meters 2,894 Total 1996 Population 7,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.73 Weighted 1996 Population 7,000 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4 32 Total 1996 Employment 1,440 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.59 Weighted 1996 Em to ent 1,440 Wei hted Meters 2,707 DFWI/132558lFR:~ICw31 wP5 Meter Summary City• Sa$ijy~w Provided. w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent '/ " 1 0 2,490 2,490 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 'fz " 3 33 0 0 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total - 2,490 2,490 Non-Residential Meters '/ " 1 0 94 94 1 " 167 27 45 1 'k" 3.33 1 3 2" 5.33 69 368 3" 10.0 1 10 4" 16 67 2 33 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 194 553 ~O Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 2,684 4o Fort Worth Water 93 Total Equivalent Meters 3,043 Total 1996 Population 9,300 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 73 Weighted 1996 Population 9,300 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 5 97 Total 1996 Employment 3,300 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 46 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 3 300 Wei hted Meters 2 684 '"Meter breakdown assumed same as in 1993 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW20.WP5 Meter Summary Clty• ,,S'~cpm Parlr Provided. w ~ ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ',~" 1 0 1,381 1,381 1" 1 67 1 2 1 'fz " 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 1,382 1,383 Non-Residential Meters '~4 " 1 0 84 84 1" 1 67 9 15 1 'fi " 3.33 0 0 2" 5 33 1 5 3" 10 0 0 0 4" lb 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 94 104 9o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,476 4o Fort Worth Water 0 Total Equivalent Meters 1,487 Total 1996 Population 3,950 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.86 Weighted 1996 Population 3,950 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 6 25 Total 1996 Employment 650 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.68 Wer kited 1996 Em to ment 650 Wei kited Meters 1 476 DFW1/132558/FRMC'W21 WPS Meter Summary Clty' Tarrant (~~j~nf~ Mf T~~}1 Provided. W~4c. ~ Residential Meters Size Enuivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ~,G " 1 0 671 671 1" 1 67 671 1,121 1 'k " 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 16 85 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 1, 358 1, 877 Non-Residential Meters '~k " 1 0 0 0 1" 1 67 73 122 1'fz" 333 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16.67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 73 122 `Yo Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 1,431 Y Fort Worth Water 95 Total Equivalent Meters 1,999 Total 1996 Population 5,000 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.66 Weighted 1996 Population 5,000 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident, Equiv Meters 0.41 Total 1996 Employment 50 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 49 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 50 Wei hted Meters 1 431 DFW 1 /132558/FRMCW23.WP5 Meter Summary ~Ity• TRA WallrPr-C'nllnwa~_ Provided. ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'k" 3.33 -- -- 2" 5.33 -- -- 3 " 10.0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33.33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10 76 67 -- -- Total -- -- 7,928 Non-Residential Meters 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'h" 3 33 -- -- 2" 5 33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53.33 -- -- 10" 76 67 - -- Total -- 1, 337 ** Y Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 8,403** Fort Worth Water NA Total Equivalent Meters 9,265 Total 1996 Population** 22,435 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 2.83* Weighted 1996 Population 22,435 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 7.23* Total 1996 Employment** 9,664 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.67* Wei hted 1996 Em 1o ment .9,664 Wei hted Meters 8,403 Note: All meter quantities are weighted based on percentage of population served by Fort Worth. *Data not available. Numbers based on weighted average for N Richland Hills and Hurst. ** Included in numbers for N Richland Hills and Hurst. DFWl/132558/FRMCWW04 WPS Meter Summary City• Wafa„aa Provided. w & ~ Residential Meters Size Equivalenc~Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a " 1 0 -- 7,038 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'fz " 3 33 -- -- 2" 5 33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53 33 -- -- 10 76 67 -- -- Total -- -- 7,038 Non-Residential Meters 'k " 1 0 -- 171 1 " 1 67 -- -- 1 'f~" 3 33 -- -- 2" 5.33 -- -- 3 " 10 0 -- -- 4" 16 67 -- -- 6" 33 33 -- -- 8" 53.33 -- -- 10" 76.67 -- -- Total -- 171 ~O Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 7,315 `Yo Fort Worth Water 76 Total Equivalent Meters 7,209 Total 1996 Population 21,275 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 02* Weighted 1996 Population 21,275 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 7 37* Total 1996 Employment 1,260 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.91* Wei bled 1996 Em to went 1 260 Wei hied Meters 7 315 *Same numbers as 1993 1996 data on meters not available. DFWl/132558/FRMCW29 WPS Meter Summary Clty• WPCtnVPr Hillc Provided: w ~ ~yu7 Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent 3/a" 1 0 12 12 1" 1 67 85 142 1 'h" 3 33 144 480 2" 5 33 49 261 3" 10 0 1 10 4" 16.67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10 76.67 - - Total -- 291 905 Non-Residential Meters 3~ .. 1 0 - 0 1" 167 - - 1 1/z" 3 33 - - 2" 5 33 - .._. 3" 10 0 - - 4" 16 67 - - 6" 33 33 - - 8" 53 33 - - 10" 76.67 - - Total 0 % Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 291 % Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 905 Total 1996 Population 672 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 0 74 Weighted 1996 Population 672 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters - Total 1996 Employment 19 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 2.31 Wei hted 1996 Em to ent 19 Wei hted Meters 291 DFW 1 /f 32558/FRMCW26. WPS _. Meter Summary Clty• WpC}tL rfh i!1 e Provided, w ~ ww Residential Meters Size Eguivaiency Factor uantit * E uivalent '~ " 1 0 596 596 1 " 1 67 0 0 1 '~ " 3 33 0 0 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10 76.67 0 0 Total -- 596 596 Non-Residential Meters a~ " 1 0 2 2 1 " 1 67 0 p 1 '~" 3 33 0 p 2" 5 33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33 33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76 67 0 0 Total 2 2 9o Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 598 ~O Fort Worth Water 100 Total Equivalent Meters 598 Total 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3.94 Weighted 1996 Population 2,350 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 201 Total 1996 Employment 402 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3 93 Wei hted 1996 Em to went 402 Wei hted Meters 598 *Same numbers as 1993 Data not provided in 1996 DFWl/132558/FRMCw'l7 WPS Meter Summary City• 'yy~te.~tttP.,,Pnt Provided: w & ~vw Residential Meters Size Equivalency Factor uantit Equivalent ~/a " 1 0 4,100 4,100 1 " 1 67 50 84 1 'fi " 3.33 0 0 2" 5.33 0 0 3" 10 0 0 0 4" 16 67 0 0 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53 33 0 0 10 76 67 0 0 Total -- 4,150 4,184 Non-Residential Meters '/a " 1 0 100 100 1 " 1 67 50 84 1 'fi " 3 33 50 167 2" 5 33 75 400 3" 10.0 0 0 4" 16.67 3 50 6" 33.33 0 0 8" 53.33 0 0 10" 76.67 0 0 Total 278 801 Y Fort Worth Sewer 100 Total Meters 4,428 3o Fort Worth Water 42 Total Equivalent Meters 4,985 Total 1996 Population 15,500 Ratio-Capita/Residential Equiv Meters 3 70 Weighted 1996 Population 15,500 Ratio-Jobs/Non-Resident. Equiv Meters 4.62 Total 1996 Employment 3,700 Ratio-Capita/Total Meters 3.50 Wei hied 1996 Em to went 3 700 Wei hied Meters 4 428 DFW 1/132558/FRMCW28.WP5 i i City of Fort Worth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication 05/28/96 REFERENCE NUIHBER ~ I LOG 60LAND ~ 1 of 2 SIIBJECT PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW UPDATE OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SAME, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council Conduct a public hearing to discuss and review an update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan, consideration of amendments to same and amendment of impact fees for water and wastewater; 2 Adopt the amendments to the Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan, 3 Adopt the of Impact Fee Ordinance for water and wastewater facilities DISCUSSION• In accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Fort Worth City Council appointed the Capital Improvements Plan Advisory Committee (CAC) on December 5, 1989 to assist and advise the City Council in consideration, adoption and amending of impact fees The State Statute requires that the original Impact Fees Ordinance and any amendments to it be reviewed each three years and amended as necessary to reflect any changes in the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and the Impact Fee Ordinance On April 16, 1996, the City Council approved a resolution calling for a public hearing to consider the adoption of amendments to the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance The amendments were filed with the City Secretary on May 9, 1996, and have been available for public inspection since that date Revised Imt~act Fee Ordinance The Impact Fee Ordinance which amends Chapter 35 of the Code of the City of Fort Worth by adding Section 35-58 2, applies to all new development within the corporate boundaries of Fort Worth and its extraterritorial jurisdiction The revised ordinance establishes a maximum assessable impact fee per service unit (3/4" meter) of 5799 00 and $1,017 00 for water and wastewater facilities respectively, to be assessed as set forth in Schedule 1, an attachment to the Ordinance Schedule 2 sets forth the impact fee to be collected, which such amount is established as of the date of the issuance of the building permit or connection to the water or wastewater system Printed on Reayded Paper City of Fort Worth Texas Mayor and Council Communication 05/28/96 - ---'-- L~~ ~'•'~ Pecs G-11489 60LAND 2 of 2 SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW UPDATE OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SAME, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES A new development would be assessed at the time of final platting using Schedule 1 and would pay the fee at the time a building permit is approved according to Schedule 2 Impact fees collected pursuant to the Ordinance must be kept in a separate interest-bearing account and used only to finance projects designated in the Capital Improvements Plan Procedures for refunds, rebates and relief procedures are described in the Ordinance The wholesale water and wastewater contracts require that any revision to the impact fee shall not take effect for a period of at least ninety (90) days after adoption by Fort Worth FISCAL INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION The Water Department is responsible for all computations and collection of water and wastewater impact fee MG•f Submitted for City Manager's FUND ACCOUNT CENTER Office by: AMO~T CITY SECRETARY i aw _ Mike Groomer 6140 Originating Department He d qpp~ fl~ a : Lee Bradley Jr 8207 (from) ~~~~/ ~~{'~/~M ~Ay 28 1~~ ~7 For Additional Wormatio J ' n / ~_ - ~ ~~~`~ Contact: City 5ecrolary of l6~ Lee $radley, Jr 8207 Citp of Fort Worth, Sexes Printed on Recycled Paper A~t~p(e~ Ur~~raartce NQ_ ~~J`/~~