I. Introduction V. Sample Calculations VI. Conclusion... 30

Transcription

1 December Georgetown Roadway Impact Fee Study Prepared Prep Pr epar par a ed ed bby: y y:

2

3 Table of Contents I. Introduction... 1 II. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs... 2 A. Land Use Assumptions... 2 B. Capital Improvements Plan... 5 III. Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees A. Service Areas B. Service Units C. Cost Per Service Unit D. Cost of the CIP E. Service Unit Calculation IV. Impact Fee Calculations A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development V. Sample Calculations VI. Conclusion APPENDICES A. s B. CIP Service Units of Supply C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory D. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit Roadway Impact Fee Study i December 2009

4 List of Exhibits 1 Service Areas Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Area A... 8 Service Area B... 9 Service Area C Service Area D Service Area E Service Area F List of Tables 1 Residential and Non-Residential Projections for the City of Georgetown Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area A... 5 Service Area B... 5 Service Area C... 6 Service Area D... 6 Service Area E... 6 Service Area F Level of Use Table Level of Use for Proposed Facilities Level of Use for Existing Facilities Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area A Service Area B Service Area C Service Area D Service Area E Service Area F Transportation Demand Factor Calculations Year Growth Projections Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) Roadway Impact Fee Study ii December 2009

5 I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities must follow in order to create and implement impact fees. Senate Bill 243 (SB 243) amended Chapter 395 in September 2001 to define an Impact Fee as a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of Roadway improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. Accordingly, the City of Georgetown has developed its Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with which to implement transportation (roadway) Impact Fees. The City has retained to provide professional transportation engineering services for the development of the roadway impact fee policy. This report includes details of the impact fee calculation methodology in accordance with Chapter 395, the applicable Land Use Assumptions, development of the CIP, and the Land Use Equivalency Table. This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee: the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Information from these two components is used extensively in the remainder of the report. This report consists of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact fees. This discussion - Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees and Impact Fee Calculation addresses each of the components of the computation and modifications required for the study. The components include: Service Areas Service Units Cost Per Service Unit Cost of the CIP Service Unit Calculation Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development The report also includes a section concerning the Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit. In the case of Roadway Impact Fees, this involves the calculation of the applicable credit required by law to offset the City s use of ad valorem taxes to help fund the Impact Fee CIP. This plan, prepared by HDR, Inc., and upon which we relied, details the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit the City of Georgetown may apply under Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The final section of the report is the Conclusion, which presents the findings of the study analysis and summarizes the report Roadway Impact Fee Study 1 December 2009

6 II. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATION INPUTS A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS In order to assess an impact fee, Land Use Assumptions must be developed to provide the basis for population and employment growth projections within a political subdivision. As defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, these assumptions include a description of changes in land uses, densities, and population in the service area. In addition, these assumptions are useful in assisting the City of Georgetown in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development. The residential and non-residential estimates and projections were all compiled in accordance with the following categories: Units: Population: Employment: Number of dwelling units, both single and multi-family. Number of people, based on person per dwelling unit factors. Square feet of building area based on retail, service, and basic land uses. Each classification has unique trip making characteristics. Retail: Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector, such as grocery stores and restaurants. Service: Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as government and other professional administrative offices. Basic: Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside of the local economy, such as manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale, trade, warehousing, and other industrial uses. The geographic boundaries of the impact fee service areas for roadway facilities are shown in Exhibit 1. The City of Georgetown is divided into nine (9) service areas of which six (6) had a maximum roadway impact fee determined. Sun City, Lake Georgetown, and an area representing downtown did not have the maximum fee calculated. These areas were determined to be no fee" at the beginning of the project. The other Service Areas were based upon input from the City of Georgetown staff, Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and City Council. For roadway facilities, the service areas are limited to those areas within the current corporate limits. Therefore, areas within the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) (as of January 1, 2009) are excluded from this study. It should be noted that at locations where service area boundaries follow a thoroughfare facility, the proposed boundary is intended to follow the centerline of the roadway. In cases where a service area boundary follows the City Limits, only those portions of the facility within the City Limits are included in the service area. Table 1 summarizes the residential and non-residential projections by service area within the City of Georgetown for 2008, as well as the residential and non-residential projections by service area within the City of Georgetown for Roadway Impact Fee Study 2 December 2009

7 Sun City Lake Georgetown B B A C OTP Local Roadways Railroads Lake Georgetown ETJ Legend Service Areas A B C D E F Downtown Lake Georgetown D Sun City December 2009 E F Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas Exhibit 1 0 4,000 8,000 16,000 Feet

8 Table 1. Residential and Non-Residential Projections for the City of Georgetown Service Residential Non-Residential (Square Feet) Year Area Population Units Basic Service Retail Total ,273 3,091 1,777, , ,000 2,302,600 A ,290 4,430 3,706, , ,400 4,978, ,959 1, , , ,000 1,113,200 B ,423 2,141 1,171, , ,400 2,124, ,764 2, , , ,400 1,307,300 C ,985 3,995 1,905, , ,800 3,225, ,300 2, , , ,600 1,131,700 D ,746 2,582 1,396, , ,600 2,198, ,727 1,909 1,581, , ,400 2,274,250 E ,210 3,070 3,112, , ,400 4,283, ,347 2, ,800 63,350 83, ,350 F ,636 4,212 1,267, , ,400 1,673,750 *Note: Land Use excludes Sun City, Lake Georgetown and Downtown Area Roadway Impact Fee Study 4 December 2009

9 B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The City has identified the City-funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Roadway Impact Fees is made up of: Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; Projects currently under construction; and All remaining projects needed to complete the City s Overall Transportation Plan. The CIP includes arterial class roadway facilities as well as intersection improvements. All of the arterial facilities are part of the currently adopted Overall Transportation Plan. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees for the Impact Fee Study is listed in Table 2 and mapped in Exhibit 2A through Exhibit 2F. The table shows the length of each project as well as the facility s Overall Transportation Plan classification. The CIP was developed in conjunction with input from City of Georgetown staff and represents those projects that will be needed to accommodate the growth projected in Table 1. Table 2.A. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area A Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd % A-2 MIN Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR % A-3 MIN Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr % A-4 MIN Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln % A-5 MIN Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd % A A-6 MIN Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd % A-7 MIN Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr % A-8 MIN Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH % A-9 MC FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR % A-10 MIN Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City. Table 2.B. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area B Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd % B-2 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir % B B-3 MAJ DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr % B-4 MC Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City Roadway Impact Fee Study 5 December 2009

10 Table 2.C. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area C Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area C-1 MIN Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave % C-2 MIN Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd % C-3 MIN CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop % C-4 MIN CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd % C-5 MAJ FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave % C-6 MIN FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop % C-7 MIN FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR % C-8 MAJ Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave % C C-9 MAJ NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR % C-10 MAJ NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM % C-11 MC CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street % C-12 MC CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd % C-13 MC CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave % C-14 MC Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR % C-15 MC Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop % C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City. Table 2.D. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area D Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area D-1 MIN DB Wood Rd. (2) Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW Bypass % D-2 MIN DB Wood Rd. (3) SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH % D-3 MAJ Future Major Arterial (SW 2) City Limits to Leander Rd % D D-4 MC Future Major Collector (SW 3) City Limits to Leander Rd % D-5 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1) 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd % D-6 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2) CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector % D-7 MAJ (1/3) Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City. Table 2.E. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area E Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area E-1 MIN FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. to ETJ % E-2 MC Rabbit Hill (1) Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd % E-3 MC Rabbit Hill (2) 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue Springs % E-4 MC Rabbit Hill (3) 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR % E E-5 MC Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR % E-6 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 to Maple St % E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop % E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City Roadway Impact Fee Study 6 December 2009

11 Table 2.F. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area F Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop % E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd % F-3 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (2) Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St % F-4 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (3) 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St % F-5 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (1) Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop % F-6 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (2) 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner Loop % F-7 MAJ SE Inner Loop (1) Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd % F-8 MAJ SE Inner Loop (2) Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR % F F-9 MAJ SE Inner Loop (3) 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr % F-10 MAJ (1/2) SE Inner Loop (4) Belmont Dr. to SH % F-11 MAJ CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial % F-12 MAJ CR 110 (2) 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City Limits % F-13 MC Future Collector Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFR % F-14 MC CR ' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City Limits % F-15 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd % F-16 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 (2) Southwestern Blvd. to SH % C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd % TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% *The Traffic Management Center's cost is shared among eight service areas including Downtown and Sun City Roadway Impact Fee Study 7 December 2009

12 C-1 Old Airport Rd. CR 143 A-9 FM 972 Sun City SH 195 A-8 A-7 Airport Rd. Shell Rd. Brangus Rd. A-6 Williams Dr. A-1, B-1 B Woodlake Dr. Verde Vista Wildwood Dr. B-3 Lake Georgetown Country Rd. B-4 Serenada Dr. Northwest Blvd. Lakeway Dr. Cavu Rd. A Airport Rd. Lakeway Dr. A-3 C-2 A-5 A-4 A-2 C-8 NE Inner Loop C-3 C-9 CR 151 C-4 C-10 C-7 FM 971 B Williams Dr. Spur 158 C-6 A-10 C-5 FM 971 C-11 Legend DB Wood Rd. SH 29 Impact Fee Eligible Project Other Thoroughfare Facilities D-2 Wolf Ranch Pkwy. D Rivery Blvd. E C Impact Fee CIP (SA A) Smith Creek Rd. E C-12 C-14 C-16, F-17 F-5/6 C-15 C-13 NE Inner Loop Exhibit 2A Roadway Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 Feet December 2009 F-10 F F-8/9

13 C-1 Old Airport Rd. Sun City B-2 A-7 Jim Hogg Dr. Shell Rd. Brangus Rd. Casa Loma Circle Williams Dr. A-1, B-1 B Lake Georgetown Woodlake Dr. Verde Vista Wildwood Dr. DB Wood Rd. B-3 Country Rd. B-4 Serenada Dr. Northwest Blvd. Lakeway Dr. A Cavu Rd. Airport Rd. Lakeway Dr. A-3 C-2 A-5 A-4 A-2 B Williams Dr. A-10 C-5 Rivery Blvd. C DB Wood Rd. Legend University Ave. Impact Fee Eligible Project Other Thoroughfare Facilities Southwest Bypass SH 29 D-1 D-7 D-7 D-2 Impact Fee CIP (SA B) Wolf Ranch Pkwy. Exhibit 2B Roadway E Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 D Feet Leander Rd. December 2009 E-1 F FM 1460

14 C-1 Old Airport Rd. Sun City A-8 A-7 Airport Rd. Brangus Rd. A-6 Cavu Rd. A-5 A-4 Serenada Dr. Northwest Blvd. A Airport Rd. Lakeway Dr. A-2 C-8 C-9 C-4 B-4 Lakeway Dr. A-3 C-2 NE Inner Loop C-3 CR 151 C-10 C-7 FM 971 Future Collector NE Inner Loop Lake Georgetown Spur 158 C-6 B Rivery Blvd. A-10 C-5 FM 971 C-11 C-12 CR 188 C C-15 Smith Creek Rd. C-14 C-16, F-17 C-13 F-10 CR 104 D E Legend Impact Fee Eligible Project E-2 E-1 FM 1460 Maple St. FM 1460 Southwestern Blvd. E-7, F-1 Maple St. F-5/6 F-7 F-15 F-8/9 SE Inner Loop F-16 CR 110 Carlson Cv. SE Arterial 1 F-11/12 F Impact Fee CIP (SA C) Collector Exhibit 2C Roadway Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 Feet F-13 F-16 F-14 Other Thoroughfare Facilities December 2009 E-8, F-2

15 B Rivery Blvd. A-10 A C-5C-12 C C-11 DB Wood Rd. Smith Creek Rd. University Ave. SH 29 D-2 Southwest Bypass D-1 Wolf Ranch Pkwy. Maple St. F Future Major Arterial Future Major Collector D-7 D-5 D-7 D Leander Rd. E-1 FM 1460 E E-7, F-1 D-4 D-6 RM 2243 CR 174 Leander Rd. D-3 E-2 E-3 Rabbit Hill E-1 Legend Impact Fee Eligible Project Other Thoroughfare Facilities Impact Fee CIP (SA D) Exhibit 2D Roadway Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 Feet E-4 Westinghouse Rd. December 2009 Commerce Dr. E-5

16 DB Wood Rd. B Rivery Blvd. A-10 C-5 A C-11 Smith Creek Rd. C-12 CR 188 C-14 C-16, F-17 C-15 C-13 F-10 C SH 29 Southwest Bypass D-1 D-2 Wolf Ranch Pkwy. Maple St. F-5/6 F-8/9 SE Inner Loop D-7 D-7 D Leander Rd. E E-1 FM 1460 Southwestern Blvd. E-7, F-1 Maple St. F-7 F-16 CR 110 F SE Arterial 1 F-11/12 D-5 FM 1460 F-15 D-4 E-8, F-2 E-2 Rabbit Hill E-1 F-3/4 E-3 E-1 E-6 Commerce Dr. E-4 E-5 Westinghouse Rd. Legend Impact Fee Eligible Project Other Thoroughfare Facilities Impact Fee CIP (SA E) Exhibit 2E Roadway Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 Feet December 2009

17 Old Airport Rd. Lakeway Dr. NE Inner Loop A-3 C-2 C-3 CR 151 C-10 C-7 FM 971 Future Collector NE Inner Loop Spur 158 C-6 A C-5 FM 971 C-11 C C-12 CR 188 C-15 Smith Creek Rd. C-14 C-16, F-17 C-13 F-10 CR 104 FM 1460 Maple St. F-5/6 Southwestern Blvd. F-8/9 SE Inner Loop F F-14 E-7, F-1 Collector F-13 F-16 E-1 F-7 F-16 CR 110 SE Arterial 1 E Maple St. F-11/12 F-15 FM 1460 E-8, F-2 E-1 F-3/4 Clearview Dr. E-1 E-6 E Legend Impact Fee Eligible Project Other Thoroughfare Facilities Impact Fee CIP (SA F) Exhibit 2F Roadway Impact Fee Study 0 4,000 8,000 Feet December 2009

18 III. METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES A. SERVICE AREAS The nine (9) service areas used in the Roadway Impact Fee Study are shown in the previously referenced Exhibit 1. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Georgetown. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles. In the City of Georgetown service area boundaries were set using approximately a four (4) mile limit B. SERVICE UNITS The service unit is a measure of consumption or use of the roadway facilities by new development. In other words, it is the measure of supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes, the service unit is defined as a vehicle-mile. On the supply side, this is a lane-mile of an arterial street. On the demand side, this is a vehicle-trip of one-mile in length. The application of this unit as an estimate of either supply or demand is based on travel during the afternoon peak hour of traffic. This time period is commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips created by new development. Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided (supplied) by a lane-mile of roadway facility. This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, and level of service. The hourly service volumes used in the Roadway Impact Fee Study are based upon generally accepted thoroughfare capacity criteria. Table 3A and 3B shows the service volumes as a function of the facility type. Roadway Type (OTP Classifications) Table 3A. Level of Use for Proposed Facilities (used in Appendix B CIP Units of Supply) Median Configuration Hourly Vehicle-Mile Capacity per Lane-Mile of Roadway Facility RC Rural Collector Undivided 475 MC Major Collector Undivided 550 MIN Minor Arterial Undivided 650 MAJ Major Arterial Divided Roadway Impact Fee Study 14 December 2009

19 Table 3B. Level of Use for Existing Facilities (used in Appendix C Existing Facilities Inventory) Roadway Type Description Hourly Vehicle-Mile Capacity per Lane-Mile of Roadway Facility 2U-R Rural Cross-Section (i.e. gravel, dirt, etc.) 150 2U-N Two lane undivided - Neighborhood 250 2U-H Two lane undivided Arterial Type 800 2U Two lane undivided 475 3U Three lane undivided (TWLTL) 550 4U Four lane undivided (TWLTL) 550 4D Four lane divided 650 5U Five lane undivided (TWLTL) 650 6D Six lane divided 700 C. COST PER SERVICE UNIT A fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In the case of the roadway impact fee, this is the cost for each vehicle-mile of travel. This cost per service unit is the cost to construct a roadway (lane-mile) needed to accommodate a vehicle-mile of travel at capacity. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on a specific list of projects within that service area. The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in each service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period. Chapter 395 requires that Impact Fees be assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur in the city limits within the next ten-years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report (see Section III.E). As noted earlier, the units of demand are vehicle-miles of travel. D. COST OF THE CIP The costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are all of the implementation costs for the Impact Fee Study, as well as project costs for arterial system elements within the Capital Improvements Plan. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the allowable costs are including and limited to the: 1. Construction contract price; 2. Surveying and engineering fees; 3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney s fees, and expert witness fees; and 4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the Capital Improvement Plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision Roadway Impact Fee Study 15 December 2009

20 The engineer s opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part, on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per linear foot of roadway is calculated based on an average price for the various components of roadway construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of facility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The costs for location-specific items such as bridges, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other special components are added to each project as appropriate. In addition, based upon discussions with City of Georgetown staff, State, Williamson County, and developer driven projects in which the City has contributed a portion of the total project cost have been included in the CIP as lump sum costs. Based on discussions with City of Georgetown staff, it was determined that, on average, 10% of state highway system projects would be funded by the City. A typical roadway project consists of a number of costs, including the following: construction, design engineering, survey, and right-of way acquisition. While the construction cost component of a project may actually consist of approximately 100 various pay items, a simplified approach was used for developing the conceptual level project costs. Each new project s construction cost was divided into two cost components: roadway construction cost and major construction component allowances. The roadway construction components consist of the following pay items: (1) street excavation, (2) HMAC pavement, (3) flexible base, (4) lime treated subgrade, (5) surface treatment, (6) topsoil, (7) hydromulching, (8) curbs, and (9) pavement markings. Based on the above paving construction cost subtotal, a percentage of this total is calculated to allot for major construction component allowances. These allowances include preparation of mobilization, prep of ROW, traffic control, roadway drainage, special drainage structures, incidental water and sewer relocations, water quality ponds, and traffic signals. These allowance percentages are also based on historical data. The paving and allowance subtotal is given a ten percent (10%) contingency to determine the construction cost total. ROW was calculated based on a value of $33,000 per acre that was provided by the City of Georgetown staff. To determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, a percentage of the construction cost total is added for engineering, surveying, testing, and mobilization. The construction costs are variable based on the proposed Overall Transportation Plan classification of the roadway. Additional classifications are utilized in cases where a portion of the facility currently exists. The following indications are used for these projects: (1/2) for facilities where half the facility still needs to be constructed; and (1/3) for future six-lane divided facilities where only the two lanes will be constructed. Table 4 is the CIP project list for each service area with conceptual level project cost projections. Detailed cost projections and methodology used for each individual project can be seen in Appendix A, s. It should be noted that these tables reflect only conceptual-level opinions or assumptions regarding the portions of future project costs that are potentially recoverable through impact fees. Actual costs of construction are likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be precisely predicted at this time Roadway Impact Fee Study 16 December 2009

21 This CIP establishes the list of projects for which Impact Fees may be utilized. Essentially, it establishes a list of projects for which an impact fee funding program can be established. This is different from a City s construction CIP, which provides a broad list of capital projects for which the City is committed to building. The cost projections utilized in this study should not be utilized for the City s building program or construction CIP. Table 4.A 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area A Service Area A Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd % $ 5,504,000 $ 2,752,000 A-2 MIN Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR % $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 A-3 MIN Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr % $ 4,307,000 $ 4,307,000 A-4 MIN Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln % $ 5,232,000 $ 5,232,000 A-5 MIN Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd % $ 1,318,000 $ 659,000 A-6 MIN Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd % $ 3,372,000 $ 1,686,000 A-7 MIN Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr % $ 1,026,000 $ 1,026,000 A-8 MIN Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH % $ 4,066,000 $ 4,066,000 A-9 MC FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR % $ 2,995,000 $ 2,995,000 A-10 MIN Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH % $ 7,086,000 $ 7,086,000 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% $ 250,000 $ 31,250 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal $ 34,040,250 Impact Fee Study Cost $ 19,083 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA A $ 34,059,333 Table 4.B 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area B Service Area B Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd % $ 5,504,000 $ 2,752,000 B-2 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir % $ 1,032,000 $ 516,000 B-3 MAJ DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr % $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 B-4 MC Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr % $ 639,000 $ 639,000 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% $ 250,000 $ 31,250 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal $ 5,638,250 Impact Fee Study Cost $ 19,083 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA B $ 5,657,333 Table 4.C 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area C Service Area C Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area C-1 MIN Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave % $ 3,438,000 $ 3,438,000 C-2 MIN Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd % $ 1,054,000 $ 1,054,000 C-3 MIN CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop % $ 3,106,000 $ 3,106,000 C-4 MIN CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd % $ 1,418,000 $ 709,000 C-5 MAJ FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave % $ 8,066,000 $ 8,066,000 C-6 MIN FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop % $ 7,724,000 $ 7,724,000 C-7 MIN FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR % $ 2,443,000 $ 2,443,000 C-8 MAJ Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave % $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 C-9 MAJ NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR % $ 3,515,000 $ 3,515,000 C-10 MAJ NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM % $ 5,101,000 $ 5,101,000 C-11 MC CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street % $ 450,000 $ 450,000 C-12 MC CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd % $ 3,317,000 $ 3,317,000 C-13 MC CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave % $ 915,000 $ 915,000 C-14 MC Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR % $ 3,119,000 $ 3,119,000 C-15 MC Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop % $ 2,354,000 $ 2,354,000 C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd % $ 764,400 $ 382,200 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% $ 250,000 $ 31,250 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal $ 49,924,450 Impact Fee Study Cost $ 19,083 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C $ 49,943, Roadway Impact Fee Study 17 December 2009

22 Table 4.D 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area D Service Area D Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area D-1 MIN DB Wood Rd. (2) Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW Bypass % 780,000 D-2 MIN DB Wood Rd. (3) SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH % 1,115,000 D-3 MAJ Future Major Arterial (SW 2) City Limits to Leander Rd % 1,427,000 D-4 MC Future Major Collector (SW 3) City Limits to Leander Rd % 539,000 D-5 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1) 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd % 7,921,000 D-6 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2) CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector % 17,411,000 D-7 MAJ (1/3) Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd % 2,476,000 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal Impact Fee Study Cost Total Cost in SERVICE AREA D Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area $ $ 780,000 $ $ 1,115,000 $ $ 1,427,000 $ $ 539,000 $ $ 7,921,000 $ $ 8,705,500 $ $ 2,476,000 $ $ 31,250 $ 22,994,750 $ 19,083 $ 23,013,833 Table 4.E 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area E Service Area E Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area $ $ 4,478,500 $ $ 1,005,000 $ $ 469,000 $ $ 311,500 $ $ 263,000 $ $ 5,886,000 $ $ 1,246,000 $ $ 1,313,000 $ $ 31,250 E-1 MIN FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. to ETJ % 8,957,000 E-2 MC Rabbit Hill (1) Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd % 1,005,000 E-3 MC Rabbit Hill (2) 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue Springs % 938,000 E-4 MC Rabbit Hill (3) 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR % 623,000 E-5 MC Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR % 263,000 E-6 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 to Maple St % 5,886,000 E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop % 2,492,000 E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd % 2,626,000 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal $ Impact Fee Study Cost $ Total Cost in SERVICE AREA E $ 15,003,250 19,083 15,022,333 Table 4.F 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with s Service Area F Service Area F Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) % In Service Area Total Project Cost Cost in Service Area $ $ 1,246,000 $ $ 1,313,000 $ $ 606,000 $ $ 1,357,500 $ $ 1,343,000 $ $ 694,000 $ $ 6,163,000 $ $ 1,241,500 $ $ 4,900,000 $ $ 2,315,000 $ $ 449,000 $ $ 961,500 $ $ 3,356,000 $ $ 1,412,000 $ $ 6,000,000 $ $ 10,189,000 $ $ 382,200 $ $ 31,250 E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop % 2,492,000 E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd % 2,626,000 F-3 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (2) Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St % 606,000 F-4 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (3) 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St % 2,715,000 F-5 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (1) Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop % 1,343,000 F-6 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (2) 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner Loop % 1,388,000 F-7 MAJ SE Inner Loop (1) Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd % 6,163,000 F-8 MAJ SE Inner Loop (2) Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR % 2,483,000 F-9 MAJ SE Inner Loop (3) 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr % 4,900,000 F-10 MAJ (1/2) SE Inner Loop (4) Belmont Dr. to SH % 2,315,000 F-11 MAJ CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial % 449,000 F-12 MAJ CR 110 (2) 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City Limits % 1,923,000 F-13 MC Future Collector Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFR % 3,356,000 F-14 MC CR ' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City Limits % 1,412,000 F-15 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd % 6,000,000 F-16 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 (2) Southwestern Blvd. to SH % 10,189,000 C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd % 764,400 TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal $ Impact Fee Study Cost $ Total Cost in SERVICE AREA F $ 43,959,950 19,083 43,979,033 Notes: a. The planning level cost projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Georgetown. b. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City s design standards contained within the Unified Development Code or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. c. The project cost total within each Service Area may differ from the total shown in the Summary sheets contained within Appendix A due to some projects that are split between multiple service areas Roadway Impact Fee Study 18 December 2009

23 E. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION The basic service unit for the computation of Georgetown s roadway impact fees is the vehiclemile of travel during the afternoon peak-hour. To determine the cost per service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle-miles of travel for the service area for the ten-year period. The growth in vehicle-miles from 2008 to 2018 is based upon projected changes in residential and non-residential growth for the period. In order to determine this growth, baseline estimates of population, basic square feet, service square feet, and retail square feet for 2008 were made by the City, along with projections for each of these demographic statistics through Table 1 details the growth estimates used for impact fee determination. The residential and non-residential statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provide the independent variables that are used to calculate the existing (2008) and projected (2018) transportation service units used to establish the roadway impact fee maximum rates within each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle-miles) for each service area are the sum of the vehicle-miles generated by each category of land use in the service area. For the purpose of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected population is converted to dwelling units. The number of dwelling units in each service area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle-miles of travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor computes the average amount of demand caused by the residential land uses in the service area. The transportation demand factor is discussed in more detail below. For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions provide existing and projected number of building square footages for three (3) categories of non-residential land uses basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the NAICS (North American Industrial Classification System). Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of nonresidential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition. This statistic is more appropriate than the number of employees because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generation and is known at the time of application for any development or development modification that would require the assessment of an impact fee. The existing and projected Land Use Assumptions for the dwelling units and the square footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase in vehicle-miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak hour vehicle-miles of demand for each service area. The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition and the regional Origin-Destination Travel Survey performed by Texas Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs ) and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition provides the number of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit, square foot of building, or other corresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentage of retail trips are made by people who would otherwise be traveling past that Roadway Impact Fee Study 19 December 2009

24 particular establishment anyway, such as a trip between work and home. These trips are called pass-by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted for in the land use calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to discount the retail rate to avoid double counting trips. The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the region-wide travel characteristics survey conducted by Texas Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following equation: TDF = T * (1 Pb ) * Lmax where... Lmax = min( L * OD or SA L ) Variables: TDF = Transportation Demand Factor, T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit), P b = Pass-By Discount (% of trips), L max = Maximum Trip Length (miles), L = Average Trip Length (miles), and OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%) SA L = Max Service Area Trip Length (see Table 5) For land uses which are characterized by longer average trip lengths (primarily residential uses), the maximum trip length has been limited to a length based on the nature of the roadway network within the service area, along with consideration of the existing City boundaries. Although Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code allows for a service area diameter of six (6) miles, the City of Georgetown service area boundaries were set using approximately a four (4) mile limit. Therefore, the maximum trip length was assumed to be four (4) miles. The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the maximum trip length is the origin-destination reduction. This adjustment is made because the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example, impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work within Georgetown to both residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips as both residential and nonresidential trips, a 50% origin-destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use. Table 5 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land uses and the three (3) non-residential land uses. The values utilized for all variables shown in the transportation demand factor equation are also shown in the table Roadway Impact Fee Study 20 December 2009

25 Table 5. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations Variable Residential Basic Service Retail T P b 0% 0% 0% 30% L L max * TDF * L max is less than 4 miles for retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used for calculating the TDF for non-residential land uses The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are presented in the 10-Year Growth Projections in Table 6. This table shows the total vehicle-miles by service area for the years 2008 and These estimates and projections lead to the vehiclemiles of travel for both 2008 and Roadway Impact Fee Study 21 December 2009

26 Table Year Growth Projections Year 2008 SERVICE AREA RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES SQUARE FEET 4 TRANS. DEMAND FACTOR 5 NON-RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES 9 1 DWELLING VEHICLE POPULATION 1 UNITS 1 TDF2 MILES 3 BASIC SERVICE RETAIL BASIC 6 SERVICE 7 RETAIL 8 BASIC SERVICE RETAIL TOTAL TOTAL VEHICLE MILES 10 A 9,273 3, ,488 1,777, , , ,896 1,677 3,011 11,584 24,072 B 4,959 1, , , , , ,914 1,168 5,232 8,314 14,992 C 7,764 2, , , , , ,599 1,247 2,103 6,949 17,405 D 6,300 2, , , , , ,863 1,097 2,586 6,546 15,030 E 5,727 1, ,712 1,581, , , ,137 2,159 4,077 12,373 20,085 F 7,347 2, , ,800 63,350 83, , ,027 3,123 13,017 Year 2018 SERVICE AREA RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES SQUARE FEET 4 TRANS. DEMAND FACTOR 5 NON-RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE-MILES 9 POPULATION 1 SERVICE BASIC 6 SERVICE 7 RETAIL 8 BASIC SERVICE RETAIL TOTAL DWELLING VEHICLE UNITS 1 TDF2 MILES 3 BASIC RETAIL TOTAL VEHICLE MILES 10 A 13,290 4, ,897 3,706, , , ,382 4,345 6,693 25,420 43,317 B 6,423 2, ,650 1,171, , , ,544 2,044 7,532 14,120 22,770 C 11,985 3, ,140 1,905, , , ,394 2,710 10,672 20,776 36,916 D 7,746 2, ,431 1,396, , , ,420 2,169 5,400 12,989 23,420 E 9,210 3, ,403 3,112, , , ,078 2,645 8,964 23,687 36,090 F 12,636 4, ,016 1,267, , , ,917 1,145 2,646 8,708 25,724 VEHICLE-MILES OF INCREASE 11 ( ) SERVICE AREA VEH-MILES A 19,245 B 7,778 C 19,511 D 8,390 E 16,005 F 12,707 Notes: 1 From Land Use Assumptions 2 Transportation Demand Factor for each Service Area (from LUVMET) using Single Family Detached Housing land use and trip generation rate 3 Calculated by multiplying TDF by the number of dwelling units 4 From Land Use Assumptions 5 Trip generation rate and Transportation Demand Factors from LUVMET for each land use 6 'Basic' corresponds to General Light Industrial land use and trip generation rate 7 'Service' corresponds to General Office land use and trip generation rate 8 'Retail' corresponds to Free-Standing Retail land use and trip generation rate 9 Calculated by multiplying Transportation Demand Factor by the number of thousand square feet for each land use 10 Residential plus non-residential vehicle-mile totals for each Service Area 11 Total Vehicle-Miles (2008) subtracted from Total Vehicle-Miles (2018) Roadway Impact Fee Study 22 December 2009

27 IV. IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT This section presents the maximum assessable impact fee rate calculated for each service area. The maximum assessable impact fee is the sum of the eligible Impact Fee CIP costs for the service area divided by the growth in travel attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10-year period. A majority of the components of this calculation have been described and presented in previous sections of this report. The purpose of this section is to document the computation for each service area and to demonstrate that the guidelines provided by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code have been addressed. Table 7 illustrates the computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for each service area. Each row in the table is numbered to simplify explanation of the calculation. Line Title Description 1 Total Vehicle-Miles of Capacity Added by the CIP The total number of vehicle-miles added to the service area based on the capacity, length, and number of lanes in each project (from Appendix B CIP Service Units of Supply) Each project identified in the Impact Fee CIP will add a certain amount of capacity to the City s roadway network based on its length and classification. This line displays the total amount added within each service area. 2 Total Vehicle-Miles of Existing Demand A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the roadway facilities upon which capacity is being added. (from Appendix B CIP Service Units of Supply) A number of facilities identified in the Impact Fee CIP have traffic currently utilizing a portion of their existing capacity. This line displays the total amount of capacity along these facilities currently be used by existing traffic. 3 Total Vehicle-Miles of Existing Deficiencies Number of vehicle-miles of travel that are not accommodated by the existing roadway system (from Appendix C Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory) In order to ensure that existing deficiencies on the City s roadway network are not recoverable through impact fees, this line is based on the entire roadway network within the service area. Any roadway within the service area that is deficient even those not identified on the Impact Fee CIP will have these additional trips removed from the calculation. 4 Net Amount of Vehicle- Miles of Capacity Added A measurement of the amount of vehicle-miles added by the CIP that will not be utilized by existing demand (Line 1 Line 2 Line 3) This calculation identifies the portion of the Impact Fee CIP (in vehicle-miles) that may be recoverable through the collection of impact fees Roadway Impact Fee Study 23 December 2009

28 5 Total Cost of the CIP within the Service Area The total cost of the projects within each service area (from Table 4: 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions) This line simply identifies the total cost of all of the projects identified in each service area. 6 Cost of Net Capacity Supplied The total CIP cost (Line 5) prorated by the ratio of Net Capacity Added (Line 4) to Total Capacity Added (Line 1). [(Line 4 / Line 1) * (Line 5)] Using the ratio of vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP available to serve future growth to the total vehicle-miles added, the total cost of the Impact Fee CIP is reduced to the amount available for future growth (i.e. excluding existing usage and deficiencies). 7 Cost to Meet Existing Needs and Usage The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line 5) and the Cost of the Net Capacity supplied (Line 6). (Line 5 Line 6) This line is provided for information purposes only it is to present the portion of the total cost of the Impact Fee CIP that is required to meet existing demand. 8 Total Vehicle-Miles of New Demand over Ten Years Based upon the growth projection provided in the Land Use Assumptions, an estimate of the number of new vehicle-miles within the service area over the next ten years. (from Table 6) This line presents the amount of growth (in vehicle-miles) projected to occur within each service area over the next ten years. Percent of Capacity 9 Added Attributable to New Growth 10 Chapter 395 Check The result of dividing Total Vehicle-Miles of New Demand (Line 8) by the Net Amount of Capacity Added (Line 4), limited to 100% (Line 10). This calculation is required by Chapter 395 to ensure capacity added is attributable to new growth. In order to ensure that the vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP do not exceed the amount needed to accommodate growth beyond the ten-year window, a comparison of the two values is performed. If the amount of vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP exceeds the growth projected to occur in the next ten years, the Impact Fee CIP cost is reduced accordingly. 11 Cost of Capacity Added Attributable to New Growth The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity Added (Line 6) by the Percent of Capacity Added Attributable to New Growth, limited to 100% (Line 9). This value is the total Impact Fee CIP project costs (excluding financial costs) that may be recovered through impact fees. This line is determined considering the limitations to impact fees required by the Texas legislature Roadway Impact Fee Study 24 December 2009