2015 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees

Transcription

1 2015 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Prepared for the City of Georgetown Prepared by: Georgetown Utility Services and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Capital Improvements Advisory Committees And HDR and CDM June 3, 2015

2 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS COMPARABLES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16

3 2015 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The City of Georgetown is again going through the process of reviewing and updating its impact fees and conducting the associated public coordination to keep the fees current with its expanding service area and to update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with improved information. This report constitutes the City s Impact Fee Consultants maximum impact fee determination and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee s required reporting to the Georgetown City Council on the updating and public coordination process. In addition, since the City of Georgetown is in the process of obtaining ownership of the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD), this report has been presented to the CTSUD s Impact Fee Advisory Committee, so that the CTSUD Board can consider updating its impact fee. This impact fee will remain in effect until such time that ownership is transferred to the City of Georgetown. Consistent with State Law, the methodology that determines the maximum fee amounts for each fee component either considers: 1) a credit for other methods of payments for utility capital by a new customer, such as through utility rates or taxes or alternatively, 2) a reduction of maximum fee amounts equal to 50 percent of the unit capital costs of providing service. Maximum amounts mean that the determined fee amounts were calculated as the highest that can be lawfully levied by the City, given the prospective capital improvements plan, the cost of existing and new utility capacity, and consideration of a credit to new customers for net capital contributions made through rate payments. The City Council can decide to enact fees less than the maximum amounts shown in this report. As detailed later in this report, the City s consultant and Advisory Committee have also addressed the overall water and wastewater maximum fees in component pieces. For instance, the overall water maximum fee is comprised of separate amounts for water supply, treatment, pumping, storage and transmission. The overall wastewater maximum fee is similarly comprised of wastewater treatment, pumping, and interceptor components. This will facilitate the consideration of offsets or credits from the applicable fee if a developer builds and dedicates eligible facilities to the City or the City provides wholesale service to a neighboring utility and wishes to charge certain portions of the fee to be collected by the wholesale customer and then passed to the City. The maximum fee amounts do not include any capital costs for local (neighborhood) water distribution or wastewater collection systems as these facilities are, by City policy, provided by developers at their own expense, or if funded by the City, are typically used to provide service to 1

4 existing development. In either case, these local facilities would not be applicable for the impact fee charge. Planning, service demand, and design factor assumptions used in the facility sizing and costing as well as data on current utility demand, outstanding utility debt and prospective cash versus debt financing were obtained from or coordinated with the City of Georgetown staff. HDR combined these elements into the maximum impact fee calculations presented in this report. 2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA The City s future ETJ boundary and other nearby areas, including the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District that may ultimately request city utility service were used as the primary basis for the larger future impact fee service area of the City shown in Figure 1. This fee application area boundary in Figure 1 and Figure 2 would constitute the area in which Georgetown may levy the impact fees, inpart or infull, if City service is provided. This boundary does not, however, imply a legal obligation of the City of Georgetown to serve beyond its incorporated limits. If the City does not provide service, infull or inpart, then the impact fees would not apply. It is acknowledged that this proposed fee application boundary, in some areas, extend beyond the City s predicted future ETJ and also encroaches on the ETJs and service areas of neighboring utilities. This broader boundary is only intended to provide flexibility for the City, its neighboring utilities, and the development community in developing or negotiating future wholesale or retail arrangements for serving these areas. [this area intentionally left blank] 2

5 Figure 1 3

6 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Table 1 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service area. The overall acreage shown in Table 1 is reflective of the City s ETJ and its certificated water and wastewater service area. The potential water service area encompasses over 45,452 acres with about 21% of that currently developed and served. The sewer service area extends over 54,537 acres with about 17% currently developed and served. TABLE 1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Current 2025 ITEM Acres % Acres* % Water Service Area Residential 7, % 10, % NonResidential 2, % 3, % Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 36, % 31, % Total Land Use Acreage 45, % 45, % Wastewater Service Area Residential 7, % 10, % NonResidential 2, % 3, % Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 45, % 40, % Total Land Use Acreage 54, % 54, % Table 2 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service area for the CTSUD area, hereon referred to as the Western District Area. The overall acreage shown in Table 2 is reflective of the certificated area of the Western District. The potential water service area encompasses over 287,500 acres with about 13% of that currently developed and served. TABLE 2 CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS WESTERN DISTRICT Current 2025 ITEM Acres % Acres* % Water Service Area Residential 37, % 62, % NonResidential % % Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 250, % 224, % Total Land Use Acreage 287, % 287, % Over time as the City grows into its future ETJ and potential utility service area in the Western District, developed land areas will both increase and become a higher percentage of overall land uses. In the City service area, about 30% of the developed water service area and 26% of the wastewater service area is expected to be served at the end of the 10year planning period. 4

7 In the Western District, about 20% of the developed water service area is expected to be served at the end of the 10year planning period. 4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY Table 3 indicates the number of water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size for both the City and the CTSUD CCN area and what is termed a standard Service Unit (SU) conversion factor for meters of varying sizes. A typical single family residential house in Georgetown is issued a ¾ water meter, and this is considered to be one SU. However, the City s current impact fee ordinance also allows for small, affordable houses to be issued a 5/8 meter, which is rated at twothirds (2/3, or 0.67) of an SU. The SUs for meters larger than ¾ area are scaled to the flow capacity of the ¾ meter. Based on the American Water Works Association standards, the equivalent number of standard service units (SUs) can be determined for water meters of larger size. In this manner, meters of larger size (i.e. larger potential service demands) can be couched in terms of the equivalent demand of a number of typical single family homes. For this reason, the SU concept is a useful tool for being able to apply a base fee amount to service requests of varying meter sizes. [this area intentionally left blank] 5

8 TABLE 3 SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Service Units Number of Number of (SUs) Meters SUs Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2014 (b) in 2014 WATER 3/4" ,960 29,960 1" 1.7 1,228 2, " " ,861 3" ,301 4" " " " Total Water 31,984 37,479 WASTEWATER 3/4" ,313 20,313 1" , " " ,205 3" " " " " Total Wastewater 21,503 24,623 (a) Derived from AWWA C700C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 3/4" meter. (b) Source: City of Georgetow n, December, Table 4 provides the growth projections for the water system that are used throughout the impact fee model for the 10year period. The growth assumptions for the City are based on 900 additional service connections per year for 5 years and then 1,000 additional service connections for the next five years. For the Western District area, the model assumes 600 additional service connections per year. 6

9 TABLE 4 FORECAST OF WATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND CITY OF GEORGETOWN Avg. Day Demand (mgd) Peak Day Demand (mgd) Peak Hour Demand (mgd) Ground Storage Rqmts (mg) Elevated Storage Rqmts (mg) Annual Growth Rate Year Service Connections Service Units (SU) ,984 37, ,484 39, % ,984 40, % ,484 42, % ,984 44, % ,484 46, % ,084 48, % ,684 50, % ,284 51, % ,884 53, % ,484 55, % ,784 57, % Table 5 provides the growth projections for the wastewater system that are used throughout the impact fee model for the 10year period. The model assumes an additional 1,000 service connections per year. TABLE 5 FORECAST OF WASTEWATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND CITY OF GEORGETOWN Avg. Day Demand (mgd) Peak Hour Demand (mgd) Annual Growth Rate Year Service Connections Service Units (SU) ,503 24, % ,503 25, % ,503 26, % ,503 28, % ,503 29, % ,503 30, % ,503 31, % ,503 32, % ,503 33, % ,503 34, % ,503 36, % ,503 37, % Table 6 summarizes the City and Western District s current and projected water service demands and existing supply (service) capability by facility. Table 7 summarizes the City s current and projected wastewater service demands and existing supply (service) capability by facility. The number of existing SUs in these tables are reflective of the system s actual level of water and wastewater service demand, whereas the meter inventory in Table 3 reflects the number of SUs embodied in each customer s ultimate meter capacity. Simply said, the customers are, on the average, using less than the maximum rated flow capacity of the meters. 7

10 TABLE 6 EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Facilty Type Supply Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 107, ,511 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) 68,273 50,344 Treatment Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) 4.0 (11.5) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 43,895 43,895 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) 4,658 (13,271) Pumping Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) 11.0 (17.0) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 46,264 46,264 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) 7,027 (10,902) Ground Storage Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 58,408 58,408 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) 19,171 1,242 Elevated Storage Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 60,870 60,870 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) 21,632 3,703 Transmission Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) (8.7) (36.7) Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) * 33,646 33,646 Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166 Excess (Deficiency) (5,592) (23,521) * Assume SU conversion factor of : gpd/su for water supply gpd/su for treatment 1,560 1,560 gpm/su for pumping gals/su for ground storage gals/su for elevated storage 1,560 1,560 gpd/su for transmission 8

11 TABLE 7 EST. WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Facilty Type Treatment Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) 1.0 (1.6) Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) * 30,303 30,303 Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219 Excess (Deficiency) 4,535 (6,916) Pumping Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) 9.3 (0.2) Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) * 36,953 36,953 Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219 Excess (Deficiency) 11,185 (266) Interceptors Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd) Est. Service Demand Excess (Deficiency) Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) * 93,506 93,506 Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219 Excess (Deficiency) 67,738 56,287 * Assume SU conversion factor of : gpd/su for wastewater treatment gpd/su for wastewater pumping gpd/su for interceptors The projected growth of the utility system and service demands reflect an average of 1,500 new SUs per year for the system. As indicated in Table 3, the level of current and future utility demand varies by whether water and/or wastewater service is provided. For instance, some developments in the City use municipal water supplies and infrastructure, but not wastewater or viceversa. Wastewater service is not typically provided in the Western District area. Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the utility systems. As can be seen, with the realized and anticipated rapid growth of the City and surrounding areas, service demand is expected to exceed the available capacity of most of the City s current facilities by the year 2025, such that infrastructure improvements are needed in most of the various facility components that provide utility service. 5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS With the completion of the Lake Stillhouse Hollow pipeline to Lake Georgetown, the City has effectively addressed its future water supply needs for many years. Given the considerable growth facing the City in the next ten years, improvements are needed in all other components 9

12 of water utility infrastructure, including water treatment, pumping, ground and elevated storage, and transmission pipelines. Georgetown will also need noticeable improvements to its wastewater system, including two wastewater treatment plant expansions and the construction of a new treatment facility. Improvements are also identified for wastewater pumping (lift stations) and interceptor pipelines that would serve future growth. Specific projects that accomplish these service capacity goals are identified in Table 8 and Table 9a along with their costs, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected demand to these facilities. Project costs were projected to the anticipated date of construction using an inflation rate scaled over time using an index from the Association of General Contractors. A weighted unit cost of service ($ per SU) is then calculated by facility type, based on the proportionate share of use of existing versus new facility capacity by the growth anticipated over the next ten years. For water transmission mains, the modeled system capacity at current and 2025 conditions were used to calculate the unit costs. For wastewater pumping and interceptors, each project was separately examined as to whether it added to overall system capacity. [this area intentionally left blank] 10

13 TABLE 8 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Construction Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs) Construction Capacity Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity WATER SUPPLY EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing Supply $ 2,392, ,925 39,237 8,964 14,723 62,925 Lake Stillhouse Hollow $ 21,308, ,586 8,964 35,621 44,586 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 23,700, ,511 $ ,237 17,929 50, ,511 FUTURE FACILITIES $ Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL WATER SUPPLY $ 23,700, ,511 39,237 17,929 50, ,511 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 220 WATER TREATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing WTPs $ 52,613, ,895 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 52,613, ,895 $ 1,199 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895 FUTURE FACILITIES New Treatment Plant Expansion $ 50,000, ,420 $ 3,468 $ $ Subtotal Future Facilities $ 50,000, ,420 $ 3,468 14, ,420 TOTAL WATER TREATMENT $ 102,613, ,315 39,237 17,929 1,149 58,315 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 3,014 WATER PUMPING EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Booster Pump Stations $ 16,831, ,264 39,237 7,027 46,264 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 16,831, ,264 $ ,237 7,027 46,264 FUTURE FACILITIES Pastor Pump Station $ 5,200, ,306 $ 712 Central $ 7,383, ,075 $ 914 High PS $ 8,725, ,730 $ 5,042 Sun City PS $ 1,168,000 West PS $ 5,948, ,306 $ 814 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 28,424, ,417 $ 1,164 10,902 13,515 24,417 TOTAL WATER PUMPING $ 45,255, ,681 39,237 17,929 13,515 70,681 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 850 GROUND STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES mg GS Tanks $ 1,040, ,408 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 1,040, ,408 $ 18 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408 FUTURE FACILITIES Lake GST $ 3,763, ,112 Park GST $ 7,173, ,168 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 10,936, ,281 $ 539 6,096 14,185 20,281 TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $ 11,976, ,689 39,237 17,929 21,523 78,689 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 195 ELEVATED STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES mg ES Tanks $ 6,445, ,870 39,237 11,833 9,799 60,870 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 6,445, ,870 $ ,237 11,833 9,799 60,870 FUTURE FACILITIES Central EST $ 4,762, ,870 High EST $ 5,106, ,870 Rabbit Hill EST $ 1,765, ,058 Braun EST West Service Area $ 7,434, ,058 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 19,067, ,855 $ 478 6,096 33,759 39,855 TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE $ 25,512, ,725 39,237 17,929 43, ,725 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 233 TRANSMISSION EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing Transmission $ 35,361, ,646 33,646 33,646 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 35,361, ,646 $ 1,051 33,646 33,646 FUTURE FACILITIES* Major Lines Stillhouse $ 15,000,000 Major Lines Central $ 1,968,000 Major Lines High $ 24,329,000 Major Lines Rabbit Hill $ 3,039,000 Major Lines Sun City $ 1,487,000 Major Lines West $ 23,312,000 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 69,135, ,712 $ 2,916 5,650 17, ,712 TOTAL TRANSMISSION $ 104,496, ,358 39,296 17, ,358 AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU $ 2,916 WATER TOTAL $ 313,556,028 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 7,428 11

14 TABLE 9a WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Construction Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs) Construction Capacity Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity TREATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing WWTPs $ 13,193, ,303 25,768 3,435 1,100 30,303 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 13,193, ,303 $ ,768 3,435 1,100 30,303 FUTURE FACILITIES Northlands WWTP $ 12,000, ,494 Pecan Branch WWTP Expansion 1 $ 9,000, ,494 Berry Creek WWTP Expansion $ 1,000, Subtotal Future Facilities $ 22,000, ,853 $ 1,588 8,016 5,837 13,853 TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT $ 35,193, ,156 25,768 11,451 6,937 44,156 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 1,242 PUMPING EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing Lift Stations $ 4,352, ,953 25,768 3,691 7,494 36,953 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 4,352, ,953 $ ,768 3,691 7,494 36,953 FUTURE FACILITIES Berry Creek Interim LS/FM $ 7,700, ,019 Cowan Creek LS/FM $ 4,830, ,013 Dove Springs WWTP LS $ 4,354, ,816 McNutt LS/FM* $ 4,335,000 San Gabriel Interim LS/FM* $ 7,514,000 Stonehedge FM ReRoute $ 147, South Regional LS/FM* $ 2,778,000 Park LS Expansion $ 5,076,000 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 36,734, ,160 $ 1,586 7,760 15,400 23,160 TOTAL PUMPING $ 41,086, ,113 25,768 11,451 22,894 60,113 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 1,113 INTERCEPTORS EXISTING FACILITIES mgd Existing Interceptors $ 29,669, ,506 25,768 8,588 59,150 93,506 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 29,669, ,506 $ ,768 8,588 59,150 93,506 FUTURE FACILITIES Berry Creek Interceptors* $ 29,115,000 Cowan Creek Interceptors $ 9,164, Mankins Basin Interceptors $ 7,089, McNutt Basin Interceptors* $ 1,618,000 San Gabriel (South) Interceptors* $ 8,383,000 San Gabriel (Lower) Interceptors $ 9,052,000 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 64,421, , $ 3,008 2,863 18,554 21,417 TOTAL INTERCEPTORS $ 94,090, ,923 25,768 11,451 77, ,923 AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU $ 990 WASTEWATER TOTAL $ 170,369,818 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 3,345 * Does not add to system capacity. Table 9b identifies the expected average costs for the new South Fork wastewater service area. Due to the noticeably higher costs of installing collection systems in this basin, the City wishes to have a special wastewater interceptor fee for this area. Thus, capital costs for interceptors for the South Fork wastewater service area were separately calculated from the rest of the City 12

15 interceptor system. The South Fork system feeds into the City s existing sewer interceptor network, so a small allowable cost was also included for use of the existing wastewater system. TABLE 9b WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING SOUTH AND MIDDLE FORK SAN GABRIEL WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA Construction Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs) Construction Capacity Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity INTERCEPTORS mgd Existing Interceptor System $ 17,994, ,860 Future Facilities South Fork Interceptor Expansion 1 $ 2,940,000 South Fork Interceptor Expansion 2 $ 6,157,000 Interceptors LS Remove & Replace $ 7,271,000 Wolf Ranch LS/FM Expansion $ 3,566,000 Total Interceptors $ 37,928, ,860 $ 1,314 1,500 27,360 28,860 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU = $ 1, CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT For Utilities that charge an impact fee for new or expended service, the new customer generally pays for capital in two ways: 1. The upfront impact fee that gains the new customer an equity buyin to the system, and 2. Monthly utility rate payments, where a portion of rate payments are for debt service. The recent 77 th Texas Legislature amended Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code to require that either: 1) consideration of a calculated credit for rate payments to be reflected in the fee amount, or 2) a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of the capital improvements plan be given in calculating the maximum fee amount. Table 10 characterizes the present value of existing and prospective utility capital costs per SU that is projected to be supported by the utility rates and attributable to the new customers. This analysis considers the full term of existing or future bonds and is calculated using the number of SUs that would be present in the year 2020 midway through the 10year planning period. The South Fork interceptor is expected to be developerfunded with reimbursements made to those participating developers periodically through collections of the special impact fee for the watershed s interceptor system. Thus, the City will incur no debt for this project, but residents connecting to this line will pay for capital through their utility rates. Thus, a rate credit calculated for use of the City s interceptor system would be applicable to the South Fork interceptor impact fee calculation. 13

16 TABLE 10 EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS WATER UTILITY Supply Net Present Value Midpoint of Debt Payments 2019 Debt Payments Facility Type In Rates SUs per SU Existing Debt $ 654, Series $ Subtotal Water Supply $ 654, Treatment Existing Debt $ 303,811 6 Series $ 7,676, Subtotal Water Treatment $ 7,980, Pumping Existing Debt $ 97,193 2 Series $ 2,181, Subtotal Pumping $ 2,279, Ground Storage Existing Debt $ 6,009 0 Series $ 839, Subtotal Water Storage $ 845, Elevated Storage Existing Debt $ 37,218 1 Series $ 1,463, Subtotal Water Storage $ 1,500, Transmission Existing Debt $ 345,209 7 Series $ 5,307, Subtotal Transmission Lines $ 5,652, Total Water * $ 392 WASTEWATER UTILITY Treatment Existing Debt $ 217,063 31,494 $ 7 Series $ 3,028,263 31,494 $ 96 Subtotal WWTP $ 3,245,326 31,494 $ 103 Pumping Existing Debt $ 71,604 31,494 $ 2 Series $ 2,528,187 31,494 $ 80 Subtotal WWTP $ 2,599,791 31,494 $ 83 Interceptors (not including South/Middle Fork System) Existing Debt $ 784,187 31,494 $ 25 Series $ 4,433,721 31,494 $ 141 Subtotal Interceptors $ 5,217,908 31,494 $ 166 Total Wastewater $ 351 Total Water and Wastewater $

17 7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Table 11 summarizes the unit capital cost of providing new service, the two alternative credit calculations for new customers, and the maximum fee calculation for each of the rate credit options. Separately calculated maximum fees are shown for the South Fork Service Area and the remainder of the City. They differ only with respect to the wastewater interceptor fee amounts. TABLE 11 DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS Weighted Optional Adjustments Capital Cost of Option A Option B New Service Rate Less 50% Capital Optional Max. Fee Amounts Highest of ITEM per SU Credit Cost Adjustment Option A Option B Option A or B WATER Supply $ 220 $ 14 $ 110 $ 207 $ 110 Treatment $ 3,014 $ 166 $ 1,507 $ 2,848 $ 1,507 Pumping $ 850 $ 47 $ 425 $ 803 $ 425 Ground Storage $ 195 $ 18 $ 98 $ 178 $ 98 Elevated Storage $ 233 $ 31 $ 116 $ 201 $ 116 Transmission $ 2,916 $ 117 $ 1,458 $ 2,798 $ 1,458 Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost $ 4 $ $ 4 $ 4 Total Water $ 7,431 $ 392 $ 3,714 $ 7,039 $ 3,718 $ 7,039 WASTEWATER (outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area) Treatment $ 1,242 $ 103 $ 621 $ 1,139 $ 621 Pumping $ 1,113 $ 83 $ 556 $ 1,030 $ 556 Interceptors $ 990 $ 166 $ 495 $ 824 $ 495 Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost $ 4 $ $ 4 $ 4 Total Wastewater $ 3,349 $ 351 $ 1,673 $ 2,997 $ 1,676 $ 2,997 WASTEWATER (South/Middle Fork Service Area) Treatment $ 1,242 $ 103 $ 621 $ 1,139 $ 621 Pumping $ 1,113 $ 83 $ 556 $ 1,030 $ 556 Interceptors $ 2,304 $ 25 $ 1,152 $ 2,279 $ 1,152 Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost $ 4 $ $ $ 4 $ 4 Total Wastewater $ 4,663 $ 210 $ 2,330 $ 4,452 $ 2,333 $ 4,453 TOTAL WATER/WASTEWATER Outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area $ 10,780 $ 744 $ 5,386 $ 10,037 $ 5,394 $ 10,037 South/Middle Fork Service Area $ 12,094 $ 603 $ 6,044 $ 11,492 $ 6,051 $ 11, COMPARABLES For comparison purposes, the current impact fees for area cities are as follows for a new standard residential connection (1 SU): 15

18 Adopted Impact Fee Maximum Impact Fee Adopted Impact Fee as % of Max City/Utility Last Updated Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total Manville WSC 2008 $ 2,800 n/a $ 2,800 INFO NOT REC'D Brushy Creek MUD* 2008 $ 2,095 $ 1,804 $ 3,899 $ 2,095 $ 1,804 $ 3, % 100% 100% Austin Desired Development Zone** 2014 $ 700 $ 400 $ 1,100 **** **** **** Desired Development Zone Outside ETJ 2014 $ 2,500 $ 1,400 $ 3,900 **** **** **** Lots platted on or after January 1, $ 5,400 $ 2,200 $ 7,600 $ 5,415 $ 2,284 $ 7, % 96% 99% Cedar Park 2007 $ 2,250 $ 2,000 $ 4,250 INFO NOT REC'D Leander*** 2012 $ 3,880 $ 1,615 $ 5,495 $ 4,154 $ 1,648 $ 5,802 93% 98% 95% Hutto 2013 $ 3,625 $ 2,128 $ 5,753 $ 3,625 $ 2,128 $ 5, % 100% 100% San Marcos 2014 $ 2,285 $ 3,506 $ 5,791 $ 2,285 $ 3,506 $ 5, % 100% 100% Round Rock 2012 $ 3,889 $ 2,073 $ 5,962 $ 3,889 $ 2,073 $ 5, % 100% 100% Pflugerville 2014 $ 4,241 $ 2,725 $ 6,966 $ 4,241 $ 2,725 $ 6, % 100% 100% Current Georgetown 2010 $ 3,511 $ 1,694 $ 5,205 $ 4,714 $ 1,694 $ 6,408 74% 100% 81% Current Georgetown South Fork Basin 2010 $ 3,511 $ 2,927 $ 6,438 $ 4,714 $ 5,240 $ 9,954 74% 56% 65% Current CTSUD 2013 $ 4,700 n/a $ 4,700 $ 7,954 n/a $ 7,954 59% n/a 59% New Max Georgetown 2015 TBD TBD $ $ 7,039 $ 2,997 $ 10,037 0% New Max Georgetown South Fork Basin 2015 TBD TBD $ $ 7,039 $ 4,453 $ 11,492 0% West Travis County PUA Hwy 71 Service Area 2014 $ 7,476 $ 11,644 $ 19,120 $ 9,968 $ 15,525 $ 25,493 75% 75% 75% *Impact Fee has not changed since the study done in The 2003 study was done through a TCEQ process that applies to Districts and that does not require a rate credit, so it is somewhat different than this process. **Includes Central Urban Redevelopment Combining District & the area bounded by Lady Bird Lake, Lamar Blvd, 15th Street and IH 35 ***Currently being updated ****Maximum Fee is determined and then fees to be charged are determined for these zones. 9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the Advisory Committee activities during the impact fee updating process: May 13, 2015 Committee Meeting Presented draft report for the impact fee model where we reviewed the following: o Chapter 395 Impact Fee process and requirements o Land Use and CIP information o Unit Cost Calculations o Maximum Fee Calculation o Draft Report Based on comments from the committee, the growth projections were modified slightly. These changes reduced the impact fee a small amount. May 27, 2013 Committee Meeting Presented updated numbers based on growth modifications. Committee requested more information regarding maximum impact fees versus adopted impact fees. That information is reflected in this report. The committee discussed various fee strategies. The Advisory Committee makes the following findings and recommendations: The land use assumptions and Capital Improvement Plans underlying the maximum fee calculations are consistent with State Law and good engineering practices. The Advisory Committee finds that the data and methodology underlying the maximum impact fee calculation are reasonable and useful for City purposes. 16

19 By a unanimous vote, the Advisory Committee concurs with the methodology used in the calculation of the following maximum fee amounts: MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATIONS Citywide & Western District Fees (outside of South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area) Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039 Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $2,997 Total Combined Fee per SU $10,037 South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039 Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $4,453 Total Combined Fee per SU $11,492 Consistent with State Law and by a unanimous vote, the Committee recommends that the Council and the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District consider the water and wastewater impact fees be set at the maximum calculated fees. [this area intentionally left blank] 17