2008 - 2009 Georgetown Roadway Impact Fee Study€¦ · 2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study 6...

Prepared by:Prepared by:PPrPrPrPrPrPrPrPrrepepepepepepepepepepparararararararararar dedededededededededede bbb b bb bb bbby:y:y:y:y:y:yyyPPrPrPrPrrepepepepepararararara ddededededed bb bb bby:y:y:yyPrepared by:

069226600

December 2009

2008 - 2009 GeorgetownRoadway Impact Fee Study





2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study December 2009 City of Georgetown, Texas

i

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 ......................................................................................... 14 A. Service Areas................................................................................................................................................. 14 B. Service Units ................................................................................................................................................. 14 C. Cost Per Service Unit .................................................................................................................................... 15 D. Cost of the CIP .............................................................................................................................................. 15 E. Service Unit Calculation ............................................................................................................................... 19

IV. Impact Fee Calculations ................................................................................................................... 23 A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit ...................................................................................... 23 B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit ..................................................................................... 25 C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development ........................................................................................... 27

V. Sample Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 29

VI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 31 A. Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B. CIP Service Units of Supply C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory D. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit

2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study December 2009 City of Georgetown, Texas

ii

List of Exhibits 1 Service Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Area A ................................................................................................................................ 8 Service Area B ................................................................................................................................. 9 Service Area C .............................................................................................................................. 10 Service Area D .............................................................................................................................. 11

Service Area E .............................................................................................................................. 12 Service Area F .............................................................................................................................. 13 List of Tables 1 Residential and Non-Residential Projections for the City of Georgetown .......................................... 4 2 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 ................................................................................................................................ 7 3 Level of Use Table Level of Use for Proposed Facilities ............................................................................................. 14 Level of Use for Existing Facilities .............................................................................................. 15 4 Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Projections Service Area A ............................................................................................................................. 17 Service Area B ............................................................................................................................. 17 Service Area C ............................................................................................................................. 17 Service Area D ............................................................................................................................. 18 Service Area E .............................................................................................................................. 18 Service Area F .............................................................................................................................. 18 5 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations ..................................................................................... 21 6 10-Year Growth Projections ............................................................................................................. 22 7 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee ..................................................................................... 26 8 Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET).................................................................. 28

2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study 1 December 2009 City of Georgetown, Texas

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 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 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.


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: Number of dwelling units, both single and multi-family. Population: Number of people, based on person per dwelling unit factors. Employment: 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 2018.

A

F

C

D E

B

Sun City

Lake Georgetown

B

LegendOTP

Local Roadways

Railroads

Lake Georgetown

ETJ

Service AreasA

B

C

D

E

F

Downtown

Lake Georgetown

Sun City December 2009

Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas

0 8,000 16,0004,000Feet ´

Exhibit 1


Table 1. Residential and Non-Residential Projections for the City of Georgetown

Service Area Year

Residential Non-Residential (Square Feet) Population Units Basic Service Retail Total

A 2008 9,273 3,091 1,777,200 281,400 244,000 2,302,600 2018 13,290 4,430 3,706,800 729,050 542,400 4,978,250

B 2008 4,959 1,653 493,200 196,000 424,000 1,113,200 2018 6,423 2,141 1,171,200 343,000 610,400 2,124,600

C 2008 7,764 2,588 927,600 209,300 170,400 1,307,300 2018 11,985 3,995 1,905,600 454,650 864,800 3,225,050

D 2008 6,300 2,100 738,000 184,100 209,600 1,131,700 2018 7,746 2,582 1,396,800 364,000 437,600 2,198,400

E 2008 5,727 1,909 1,581,600 362,250 330,400 2,274,250 2018 9,210 3,070 3,112,800 443,800 726,400 4,283,000

F 2008 7,347 2,449 442,800 63,350 83,200 589,350 2018 12,636 4,212 1,267,200 192,150 214,400 1,673,750

*Note: Land Use excludes Sun City, Lake Georgetown and Downtown Area


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 2008-2009 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. 1.50 50%A-2 MIN Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR 0.31 100%A-3 MIN Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr. 0.58 100%A-4 MIN Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln. 0.95 100%A-5 MIN Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd. 0.25 50%A-6 MIN Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd. 0.60 50%A-7 MIN Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr. 0.19 100%A-8 MIN Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH 195 0.73 100%A-9 MC FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR 0.97 100%A-10 MIN Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH-35 0.20 100%

TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5%

A

*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


(mi)

% In Service Area

A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd. 1.50 50%B-2 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir 0.85 50%B-3 MAJ DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr. 0.09 100%B-4 MC Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr. 0.22 100%


B



Table 2.C. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area C


(mi)

% In Service Area

C-1 MIN Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave. 0.62 100%C-2 MIN Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd. 0.06 100%C-3 MIN CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 0.55 100%C-4 MIN CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd. 0.27 50%C-5 MAJ FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave. 0.25 100%C-6 MIN FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 1.39 100%C-7 MIN FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR 0.46 100%C-8 MAJ Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave. 0.12 100%C-9 MAJ NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR 151 0.45 100%C-10 MAJ NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM 971 0.63 100%C-11 MC CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street 0.42 100%C-12 MC CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd. 1.02 100%C-13 MC CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave. 0.34 100%C-14 MC Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR 188 1.03 100%C-15 MC Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop 0.75 100%

C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 50%TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5%

C


Table 2.D. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area D


(mi)

% In Service Area

D-1 MIN DB Wood Rd. (2) Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW Bypass 0.14 100%D-2 MIN DB Wood Rd. (3) SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH 29 0.20 100%D-3 MAJ Future Major Arterial (SW 2) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.17 100%D-4 MC Future Major Collector (SW 3) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.18 100%D-5 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1) 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd. 1.43 100%D-6 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2) CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector 3.09 50%D-7 MAJ (1/3) Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd. 0.68 100%


D


Table 2.E. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area E


(mi)

% In Service Area

E-1 MIN FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. to ETJ 2.76 50%E-2 MC Rabbit Hill (1) Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd. 0.37 100%E-3 MC Rabbit Hill (2) 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue Springs 0.34 50%E-4 MC Rabbit Hill (3) 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR 111 0.23 50%E-5 MC Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR 111 0.10 100%E-6 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 to Maple St. 0.72 100%

E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 50%E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 50%TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5%

E



Table 2.F. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees – Service Area F


(mi)

% In Service Area

E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 50%E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 50%

F-3 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (2) Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St. 0.08 100%F-4 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (3) 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St. 0.34 50%F-5 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (1) Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop 0.25 100%F-6 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (2) 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner Loop 0.26 50%F-7 MAJ SE Inner Loop (1) Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.76 100%F-8 MAJ SE Inner Loop (2) Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR 110 0.31 50%F-9 MAJ SE Inner Loop (3) 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr. 0.60 100%

F-10 MAJ (1/2) SE Inner Loop (4) Belmont Dr. to SH 29 0.56 100%F-11 MAJ CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 0.06 100%F-12 MAJ CR 110 (2) 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City Limits 0.24 50%F-13 MC Future Collector Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFR 1.03 100%F-14 MC CR 104 665' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City Limits 0.48 100%F-15 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.80 100%F-16 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 (2) Southwestern Blvd. to SH 130 2.04 100%

C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 50%TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5%


F

A

C

B

F

Sun City

D

B

E

Lake Georgetown

E

DB Wood Rd.

SH 195

CR 143

Shell

Rd.

Verde Vista

SH 29

Spur

158

Williams Dr.

Rivery

Blvd

.

Airport Rd.

Coun

try Rd

.

Northwest Blvd.

CR 151

Lakeway Dr.

Woodla

ke Dr.

FM 972

FM 971

Serenada Dr.

Wolf Ranch Pkwy.

Wildwood Dr.

Brangus Rd.

NE Inner Loop

Cavu Rd.

Old A

irpor

t Rd.

Smith Creek Rd.

Lakeway Dr.

Williams Dr.

Airport Rd.

FM 971

NE Inner Loop

A-6

A-2

A-3

A-9

A-4

A-8

F-10

C-9

B-4

B-3

C-6

C-10C-2

C-3

C-15

C-5

A-5

C-14

D-2

C-7

C-16, F-17

C-11

C-13

C-8

A-10

A-7

F-8/9

C-12

C-4

C-1

A-1, B-1

F-5/6

LegendImpact Fee Eligible Project

Other Thoroughfare Facilities

Exhibit 2ARoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA A)

A

D

B

E

C

Sun City

B

Lake Georgetown

F

DB Wood Rd.

Shell

Rd.

Verde Vista

SH 29

Williams Dr.

University Ave.

Rivery

Blvd

.

Airport Rd.

Coun

try Rd

.

Northwest Blvd. Lakeway Dr.

FM 1460

Woodla

ke Dr.

Leander Rd.

Serenada Dr.

Southwest Bypass

Wolf Ranch Pkwy.

Wildwood Dr.

Brangus Rd.

Casa Loma Circle Cavu Rd.

Old A

irpor

t Rd.

Jim Hogg Dr.Williams Dr.

DB Wood Rd.

Lakeway Dr.

D-7

A-3

A-4

B-2

B-4

B-3

E-1

C-2

C-5

A-5

D-2

A-10

A-7

D-7

A-2

D-1

C-1

A-1, B-1



Exhibit 2BRoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA B)

A

F

C

E

B

D

Sun City

Lake Georgetown Spur

158

FM 1460

Rivery

Blvd

.

Airport Rd.

Carlson Cv.SE In

ner L

oop

CR 104

Northwest Blvd.

CR 110

CR 151

SE Arterial 1

Lakeway Dr.

Future Collector

CR 188

Maple St.

FM 971

Serenada Dr.

Collector

Southwestern Blvd.

Brangus Rd.

NE Inner Loop

Cavu Rd.

Old A

irpor

t Rd.

Smith Creek Rd.

FM 1460

Maple St.Lakeway Dr.

Airport Rd.

FM 971

NE Inner Loop

A-6

F-8/9

A-2

A-3

F-7

F-5/6

A-4

F-15

A-8

F-10

C-9

F-14

E-7, F-1 F-16

B-4

F-13

C-6

C-10

C-12

E-1

C-2

C-3

C-15

C-5

A-5

C-14

C-7

C-16, F-17

C-11

C-13

F-11/12

C-8

A-10

A-7

F-16

E-8, F-2

C-4

E-2

C-1



Exhibit 2CRoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA C)

D

E

BC

F

A

DB Wood Rd.

SH 29

FM 1460

University Ave.

Rivery

Blvd

.

Westinghouse Rd.

Rabbit Hill

Leander Rd.

RM 2243Southwest Bypass

Wolf Ranch Pkwy.

Futur

e Majo

r Coll

ector

CR 17

4

Future Major Arterial

Maple St.

Smith Creek Rd.

Commerce Dr.

Leander Rd.D-7

D-6

E-3

E-1

D-5

E-4

D-4

D-3

E-2

E-5

D-2D-7

E-1

E-7, F-1

D-1

C-11

A-10C-5

C-12



Exhibit 2DRoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA D)

F

E

C

D

BA

DB Wood Rd.

SH 29

FM 1460

Rivery

Blvd

.

Westinghouse Rd.SE

Inne

r Loo

p

Rabbit Hill

CR 110 SE Arterial 1Leander Rd.

CR 188

Maple St.

Southwest Bypass

Wolf Ranch Pkwy.

Southwestern Blvd.

Smith Creek Rd.

Commerce Dr.

FM 1460Maple St.

D-7

E-6

F-8/9

E-1

F-7

E-3

F-5/6

F-15

F-10

F-3/4

E-7, F-1

D-5E-4

E-8, F-2

D-4

E-2

C-12

C-15

C-14

E-5F-16

D-2

C-16, F-17

C-13

F-11/12

D-7

E-1

E-1

D-1

C-11

A-10C-5



Exhibit 2ERoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA E)

F

C

E

AE

Spur

158

FM 1460

SE In

ner L

oop

CR 104

CR 110

CR 151

SE Arterial 1

Lakeway Dr.

Future Collector

CR 188

Maple St.

FM 971

Collector

Southwestern Blvd.

NE Inner Loop

Old A

irpor

t Rd.

Smith Creek Rd.

Clearview Dr.

Maple St.

FM 971

FM 1460

NE Inner Loop

E-6

F-8/9

A-3

E-1

F-7

F-5/6

F-15

F-10

F-14

F-3/4

E-7, F-1 F-16

E-8, F-2

F-13

C-6

C-10

C-12

C-2

C-3

C-15

C-5

C-14

C-7

C-16, F-17

C-11

C-13

F-11/12

E-1

E-1

F-16



Exhibit 2FRoadway

Impact Fee Study

December 2009´0 4,000 8,000

Feet

Impact Fee CIP (SA F)


III. METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES

A. SERVICE AREAS The nine (9) service areas used in the 2008-2009 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.

Table 3A. Level of Use for Proposed Facilities (used in Appendix B – CIP Units of Supply)

Roadway Type (OTP Classifications) 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 700


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.”


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, Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections. 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.


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 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area A


(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. 1.5 50% 5,504,000$ 2,752,000$ A-2 MIN Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR 0.31 100% 4,200,000$ 4,200,000$ A-3 MIN Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr. 0.58 100% 4,307,000$ 4,307,000$ A-4 MIN Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln. 0.95 100% 5,232,000$ 5,232,000$ A-5 MIN Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd. 0.25 50% 1,318,000$ 659,000$ A-6 MIN Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd. 0.6 50% 3,372,000$ 1,686,000$ A-7 MIN Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr. 0.19 100% 1,026,000$ 1,026,000$ A-8 MIN Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH 195 0.73 100% 4,066,000$ 4,066,000$ A-9 MC FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR 0.97 100% 2,995,000$ 2,995,000$

A-10 MIN Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH-35 0.2 100% 7,086,000$ 7,086,000$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

34,040,250$ 19,083$

34,059,333$

Service Area Project Cost SubtotalImpact Fee Study Cost

A

Total Cost in SERVICE AREA A

Table 4.B – 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – 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. 1.50 50% 5,504,000$ 2,752,000$ B-2 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir 0.85 50% 1,032,000$ 516,000$ B-3 MAJ DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr. 0.09 100% 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ B-4 MC Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr. 0.22 100% 639,000$ 639,000$

TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$ 5,638,250$

19,083$ 5,657,333$

B


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA B

Table 4.C – 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area C

Service


% In Service Area


C-1 MIN Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave. 0.62 100% 3,438,000$ 3,438,000$ C-2 MIN Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd. 0.06 100% 1,054,000$ 1,054,000$ C-3 MIN CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 0.55 100% 3,106,000$ 3,106,000$ C-4 MIN CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd. 0.27 50% 1,418,000$ 709,000$ C-5 MAJ FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave. 0.25 100% 8,066,000$ 8,066,000$ C-6 MIN FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 1.39 100% 7,724,000$ 7,724,000$ C-7 MIN FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR 0.46 100% 2,443,000$ 2,443,000$ C-8 MAJ Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave. 0.12 100% 4,200,000$ 4,200,000$ C-9 MAJ NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR 151 0.45 100% 3,515,000$ 3,515,000$ C-10 MAJ NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM 971 0.63 100% 5,101,000$ 5,101,000$ C-11 MC CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street 0.42 100% 450,000$ 450,000$ C-12 MC CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd. 1.02 100% 3,317,000$ 3,317,000$ C-13 MC CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave. 0.34 100% 915,000$ 915,000$ C-14 MC Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR 188 1.03 100% 3,119,000$ 3,119,000$ C-15 MC Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop 0.75 100% 2,354,000$ 2,354,000$

C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 50% 764,400$ 382,200$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

49,924,450$ 19,083$

49,943,533$


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C

C


Table 4.D – 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area D

Service


% In Service Area


D-1 MIN DB Wood Rd. (2) Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW Bypass 0.14 100% 780,000$ 780,000$ D-2 MIN DB Wood Rd. (3) SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH 29 0.2 100% 1,115,000$ 1,115,000$ D-3 MAJ Future Major Arterial (SW 2) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.17 100% 1,427,000$ 1,427,000$ D-4 MC Future Major Collector (SW 3) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.18 100% 539,000$ 539,000$ D-5 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1) 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd. 1.43 100% 7,921,000$ 7,921,000$ D-6 MIN Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2) CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector 3.09 50% 17,411,000$ 8,705,500$ D-7 MAJ (1/3) Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd. 0.68 100% 2,476,000$ 2,476,000$

TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$ 22,994,750$

19,083$ 23,013,833$

Service Area Project Cost Subtotal

D

Total Cost in SERVICE AREA DImpact Fee Study Cost

Table 4.E – 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area E

Service


% In Service Area


E-1 MIN FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. to ETJ 2.76 50% 8,957,000$ 4,478,500$ E-2 MC Rabbit Hill (1) Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd. 0.37 100% 1,005,000$ 1,005,000$ E-3 MC Rabbit Hill (2) 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue Springs 0.34 50% 938,000$ 469,000$ E-4 MC Rabbit Hill (3) 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR 111 0.23 50% 623,000$ 311,500$ E-5 MC Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR 111 0.10 100% 263,000$ 263,000$ E-6 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 to Maple St. 0.72 100% 5,886,000$ 5,886,000$

E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 50% 2,492,000$ 1,246,000$ E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 50% 2,626,000$ 1,313,000$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

15,003,250$ 19,083$

15,022,333$ Total Cost in SERVICE AREA E

E


Table 4.F – 10-Year Roadway Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections – Service Area F

Service


% In Service Area


E-7, F-1 MC Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 50% 2,492,000$ 1,246,000$ E-8, F-2 MC Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 50% 2,626,000$ 1,313,000$

F-3 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (2) Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St. 0.08 100% 606,000$ 606,000$ F-4 MAJ Westinghouse Rd. (3) 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St. 0.34 50% 2,715,000$ 1,357,500$ F-5 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (1) Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop 0.25 100% 1,343,000$ 1,343,000$ F-6 MIN Southwestern Blvd. (2) 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner Loop 0.26 50% 1,388,000$ 694,000$ F-7 MAJ SE Inner Loop (1) Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.76 100% 6,163,000$ 6,163,000$ F-8 MAJ SE Inner Loop (2) Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR 110 0.31 50% 2,483,000$ 1,241,500$ F-9 MAJ SE Inner Loop (3) 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr. 0.6 100% 4,900,000$ 4,900,000$

F-10 MAJ (1/2) SE Inner Loop (4) Belmont Dr. to SH 29 0.56 100% 2,315,000$ 2,315,000$ F-11 MAJ CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 0.06 100% 449,000$ 449,000$ F-12 MAJ CR 110 (2) 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City Limits 0.24 50% 1,923,000$ 961,500$ F-13 MC Future Collector Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFR 1.03 100% 3,356,000$ 3,356,000$ F-14 MC CR 104 665' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City Limits 0.48 100% 1,412,000$ 1,412,000$ F-15 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.8 100% 6,000,000$ 6,000,000$ F-16 MAJ (1/2) SE Arterial 1 (2) Southwestern Blvd. to SH 130 2.04 100% 10,189,000$ 10,189,000$

C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 50% 764,400$ 382,200$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

43,959,950$ 19,083$

43,979,033$


Total Cost in SERVICE AREA F

F

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.


E. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION The basic service unit for the computation of Georgetown’s roadway impact fees is the vehicle-mile 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 2018. 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 non-residential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8th 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, 8th 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, 8th 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


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:

Variables: TDF = Transportation Demand Factor, T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit), Pb = Pass-By Discount (% of trips), Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles), L = Average Trip Length (miles), and OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%) SAL = 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 non-residential 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.

)SAor *(min *)1(*

Lmax

max

where... ODLLLPTTDF b

=−=


Table 5. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations

Variable Residential Basic Service Retail T 1.01 0.97 1.49 5.00 Pb 0% 0% 0% 30% L 11.65 11.65 11.65 7.05

Lmax * 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.53 TDF 4.04 3.88 5.96 12.34

* Lmax 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 2018. These estimates and projections lead to the vehicle-miles of travel for both 2008 and 2018.


Year

200

8TO

TAL

POPU

LATI

ON

1D

WEL

LIN

G

UN

ITS1

TDF2

VEH

ICLE

M

ILES

3BA

SIC

SER

VIC

ER

ETAI

LBA

SIC

6SE

RVI

CE7

RET

AIL8

BASI

CSE

RVI

CE

RET

AIL

TOTA

LVE

HIC

LE

MIL

ES10

A9,

273

3,09

14.

0412

,488

1,77

7,20

028

1,40

024

4,00

03.

885.

9612

.34

6,89

61,

677

3,01

111

,584

24,0

72B

4,95

91,

653

4.04

6,67

849

3,20

019

6,00

042

4,00

03.

885.

9612

.34

1,91

41,

168

5,23

28,

314

14,9

92C

7,76

42,

588

4.04

10,4

5692

7,60

020

9,30

017

0,40

03.

885.

9612

.34

3,59

91,

247

2,10

36,

949

17,4

05D

6,30

02,

100

4.04

8,48

473

8,00

018

4,10

020

9,60

03.

885.

9612

.34

2,86

31,

097

2,58

66,

546

15,0

30E

5,72

71,

909

4.04

7,71

21,

581,

600

362,

250

330,

400

3.88

5.96

12.3

46,

137

2,15

94,

077

12,3

7320

,085

F7,

347

2,44

94.

049,

894

442,

800

63,3

5083

,200

3.88

5.96

12.3

41,

718

378

1,02

73,

123

13,0

17

Year

201

8TO

TAL

POPU

LATI

ON

1D

WEL

LIN

G

UN

ITS1

TDF2

VEH

ICLE

M

ILES

3BA

SIC

SER

VIC

ER

ETAI

LBA

SIC

6SE

RVI

CE7

RET

AIL8

BASI

CSE

RVI

CE

RET

AIL

TOTA

LVE

HIC

LE

MIL

ES10

A13

,290

4,43

04.

0417

,897

3,70

6,80

072

9,05

054

2,40

03.

885.

9612

.34

14,3

824,

345

6,69

325

,420

43,3

17B

6,42

32,

141

4.04

8,65

01,

171,

200

343,

000

610,

400

3.88

5.96

12.3

44,

544

2,04

47,

532

14,1

2022

,770

C11

,985

3,99

54.

0416

,140

1,90

5,60

045

4,65

086

4,80

03.

885.

9612

.34

7,39

42,

710

10,6

7220

,776

36,9

16D

7,74

62,

582

4.04

10,4

311,

396,

800

364,

000

437,

600

3.88

5.96

12.3

45,

420

2,16

95,

400

12,9

8923

,420

E9,

210

3,07

04.

0412

,403

3,11

2,80

044

3,80

072

6,40

03.

885.

9612

.34

12,0

782,

645

8,96

423

,687

36,0

90F

12,6

364,

212

4.04

17,0

161,

267,

200

192,

150

214,

400

3.88

5.96

12.3

44,

917

1,14

52,

646

8,70

825

,724

VEH

ICLE

-MIL

ES O

F IN

CR

EASE

11 (2

008

- 201

8)N

otes

:1 F

rom

Lan

d U

se A

ssum

ptio

nsA

19,2

452 T

rans

porta

tion

Dem

and

Fact

or fo

r eac

h S

ervi

ce A

rea

(from

LU

VM

ET)

usi

ng S

ingl

e Fa

mily

Det

ache

d H

ousi

ng la

nd u

se a

nd tr

ip g

ener

atio

n ra

teB

7,77

83 C

alcu

late

d by

mul

tiply

ing

TDF

by th

e nu

mbe

r of d

wel

ling

units

C19

,511

4 Fro

m L

and

Use

Ass

umpt

ions

D8,

390

5 Tr

ip g

ener

atio

n ra

te a

nd T

rans

porta

tion

Dem

and

Fact

ors

from

LU

VM

ET

for e

ach

land

use

E16

,005

6 'Bas

ic' c

orre

spon

ds to

Gen

eral

Lig

ht In

dust

rial l

and

use

and

trip

gene

ratio

n ra

teF

12,7

077 'S

ervi

ce' c

orre

spon

ds to

Gen

eral

Offi

ce la

nd u

se a

nd tr

ip g

ener

atio

n ra

te8 'R

etai

l' co

rresp

onds

to F

ree-

Sta

ndin

g R

etai

l lan

d us

e an

d tri

p ge

nera

tion

rate

9 Cal

cula

ted

by m

ultip

lyin

g Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dem

and

Fact

or b

y th

e nu

mbe

r of t

hous

and

squa

re fe

et fo

r eac

h la

nd u

se10

Res

iden

tial p

lus

non-

resi

dent

ial v

ehic

le-m

ile to

tals

for e

ach

Ser

vice

Are

a11

Tot

al V

ehic

le-M

iles

(200

8) s

ubtra

cted

from

Tot

al V

ehic

le-M

iles

(201

8)

SER

VIC

E AR

EAVE

H-M

ILES

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL V

EHIC

LE-M

ILES

9

Tab

le 6

. 10

-Yea

r G

row

th P

roje

ctio

ns

SER

VIC

E AR

EA

RES

IDEN

TIAL

VEH

ICLE

-MIL

ESSQ

UAR

E FE

ET4

TRAN

S. D

EMAN

D F

ACTO

R5

SER

VIC

E AR

EA

RES

IDEN

TIAL

VEH

ICLE

-MIL

ESSQ

UAR

E FE

ET4

TRAN

S. D

EMAN

D F

ACTO

R5

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL V

EHIC

LE-M

ILES

9


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.


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.

9 Percent of Capacity

Added Attributable to New Growth

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. 10 Chapter 395 Check

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.


B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014 of the Code states: “(7) A plan for awarding:

(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or

(B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan…”

The plan following 395.014(7)(A) is summarized, as prepared by HDR, Inc., and upon which we relied in Appendix D, Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit. The following table summarizes the portions of Table 7 that utilize this credit calculation.

Line Title Description

12 Cost of Capacity with Debt Service

The result of multiplying the Cost of Capacity Added Attribute to New Growth (Line 11) by a percentage (130%) to account for debt service costs and interest earnings. (Line 11 * 130%)

13 Pre-Credit Maximum Fee Per Service Unit

The result of dividing the Cost of Capacity with Debt Service (Line 12) by the Total Vehicle Miles of New Demand (Line 8). (Line 12 / Line 8)

14 Credit for Ad Valorem Taxes

A credit for the portion of ad valorem taxes projected to be generated by the new service units, as per Section 395.014 of the Local Government Code. (from Appendix D – Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit)

15 Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit

Found by subtracting the Credit for Ad Valorem Taxes (Line 14) from the Pre-Credit Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (Line 13). (Line 13 - Line 14)


Table 7. Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit by Service Area

A B C D E F

1 TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP (FROM RIP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 14,085 5,797 23,984 10,613 10,066 30,255

2 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND (FROM CIP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 3,936 3,132 3,655 2,537 1,158 2,056

3 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES (FROM EXISTING FACILITIES INVENTORY, APPENDIX C) 1,809 1,836 227 0 582 282

4 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED (LINE 1 - LINE 2 - LINE 3) 8,340 829 20,102 8,076 8,326 27,917

5 TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA (FROM TABLE 4) $ 34,059,333 $ 5,657,333 $ 49,943,533 $ 23,013,833 $ 15,022,333 $ 43,979,033

6 COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED (LINE 4 / LINE 1) * (LINE 5) $ 20,167,710 $ 809,411 $ 41,860,284 $ 17,512,458 $ 12,425,789 $ 40,580,766

7 COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE (LINE 5 - LINE 6) $ 13,891,623 $ 4,847,922 $ 8,083,249 $ 5,501,375 $ 2,596,544 $ 3,398,267

8 TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS (FROM TABLE 6 and Land Use Assumptions) 19,245 7,778 19,511 8,390 16,005 12,707

9 PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH (LINE 8 / LINE 4) 230.7% 937.7% 97.0% 103.8% 192.2% 45.5%

10 IF LINE 8 > LINE 4, REDUCE LINE 9 TO 100%, OTHERWISE NO CHANGE 100.0% 100.0% 97.0% 100.0% 100.0% 45.5%

11 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH (LINE 6 * LINE 10) $ 20,167,710 $ 809,411 $ 40,604,475 $ 17,512,458 $ 12,425,789 $ 18,464,249

12 COST OF CAPACITY WITH DEBT SERVICE $ 26,218,023 $ 1,052,234 $ 52,785,818 $ 22,766,195 $ 16,153,526 $ 24,003,524

13 PRE-CREDIT MAX FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) (LINE 12 / LINE 8) $ 1,362 $ 135 $ 2,705 $ 2,713 $ 1,009 $ 1,889

14 CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES(FROM APPENDIX D) $ 137 $ 7 $ 393 $ 349 $ 192 $ 821

15 MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) (LINE 13 - LINE 14) $ 1,225 $ 128 $ 2,312 $ 2,364 $ 817 $ 1,068

SERVICE AREA:

Note: The Service Unit for roadway impact fees is defined as a vehicle-mile of travel during the afternoon peak-hour. See Section III.E for more detailed information on Service Units for roadway impact fees.


C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT The roadway impact fee is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate by the number of service units projected for the proposed development. For this purpose, the City utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET), presented in Table 8. This table lists the predominant land uses that may occur within the City of Georgetown. For each land use, the development unit that defines the development’s magnitude with respect to transportation demand is shown. Although every possible use cannot be anticipated, the majority of uses are found in this table. If the exact use is not listed, one similar in trip-making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The individual land uses are grouped into categories, such as residential, office, commercial, industrial, and institutional. The trip rates presented for each land use is a fundamental component of the LUVMET. The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by each land use per development unit. The next column, if applicable to the land use, presents the number of trips to and from certain land uses reduced by pass-by trips, as previously discussed. The source of the trip generation and pass-by statistics is the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, the latest edition of the definitive source for trip generation data. This manual utilizes trip generation studies for a variety of land uses throughout the United States, and is the standard used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for traffic impact analysis, site design, and transportation planning. To convert vehicle trips to vehicle-miles, it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length. The adjusted trip length values are based on regional origin-destination travel surveys performed by Texas Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the NHTS. The other adjustment to trip length is the 50% origin-destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips. At this stage, another important aspect of the state law is applied – the limit on transportation service unit demand. If the adjusted trip length is above the maximum trip length within the service area, the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to the corresponding value. This reduction, as discussed previously, limits the maximum trip length to the approximate size of the service areas. The remaining column in the LUVMET shows the vehicle-miles per development unit. This number is the product of the trip rate and the maximum trip length. This number, previously referred to as the Transportation Demand Factor, is used in the impact fee estimate to compute the number of service units consumed by each land use application. The number of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City ordinance) in order to determine the impact fee for a development.


Table 8. Land Use / Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table

ITE Land Use Code Development Unit

Trip Gen Rate (PM)

Pass-by

Rate

Pass-by Source Trip Rate

CAMPO Trip

Length (mi)

Adj. For O-D

Adj. Trip Length

(mi)

Max Trip Length

(mi)

Veh-Mi Per Dev-

Unit

PORT AND TERMINALTruck Terminal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 13.99 50% 7.00 4.00 26.20

INDUSTRIALGeneral Light Industrial 110 1,000 SF GFA 0.97 0.97 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 3.88General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.68 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 2.72Industrial Park 130 1,000 SF GFA 0.86 0.86 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 3.44Manufacturing 140 1,000 SF GFA 0.73 0.73 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 2.92Warehousing 150 1,000 SF GFA 0.32 0.32 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 1.28Mini-Warehouse 151 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 1.04

RESIDENTIALSingle-Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Unit 1.01 1.01 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 4.04Apartment/Multi-family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.62 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 2.48Residential Condominium/Townhome 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.52 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 2.08Mobile Home Park / Manufactured Housing 240 Dwelling Unit 0.59 0.59 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 2.36Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.22 0.22 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 0.88

LODGINGHotel 310 Room 0.59 0.59 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 2.08Motel / Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 1.66

RECREATIONALGolf Driving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 4.41Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 1.06Recreational Community Center 495 1,000 SF GFA 1.45 1.45 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 5.11Health/Fitness Club 492 1,000 SF GFA 3.53 3.53 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 12.44Ice Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 8.32Miniature Golf 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 1.16Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 48.08Racquet / Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 11.81

INSTITUTIONALChurch 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.55 0.55 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 1.46Day Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 12.46 30% B 8.72 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 23.20Library 590 1,000 SF GFA 7.30 7.30 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 19.42Primary/Middle School (1-8) 522 Students 0.16 0.16 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 0.43High School (9-12) 530 Students 0.13 0.13 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 0.35Jr / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0.12 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 0.32University / College 550 Students 0.21 0.21 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 0.56

MEDICALClinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.18 8.18 50% 4.09 4.00 20.72Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 640 1,000 SF GFA 4.72 30% B 3.30 8.18 50% 4.09 4.00 13.20Hospital 610 Beds 1.31 1.31 8.18 50% 4.09 4.00 5.24Nursing Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.22 8.18 50% 4.09 4.00 0.88

OFFICECorporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.40 1.40 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 5.60General Office Building 710 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 1.49 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 5.96Medical/Dental Office 720 1,000 SF GFA 3.46 3.46 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 13.84Single Tenant Office Building 715 1,000 SF GFA 1.73 1.73 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 6.92Office/Business Park 750 1,000 SF GFA 1.48 1.48 11.65 50% 5.83 4.00 5.92

COMMERCIALAutomobile Related

Automobile Care Center 942 1,000 SF GFA 3.38 40% B 2.03 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 7.16Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 5.98 43% A 3.41 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 12.02Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Position 19.07 56% B 8.39 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 5.03New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 2.59 20% B 2.07 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 7.30Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center 941 Service Position 5.19 40% B 3.11 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 10.96Self-Service Car Wash 947 Stall 5.54 40% B 3.32 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 1.99Automated Car Wash 948 1,000 SF GFA 11.64 40% B 6.98 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 4.19Tire Store 848 1,000 SF GFA 4.15 28% A 2.99 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 10.54

DiningFast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 934 1,000 SF GFA 33.84 50% A 16.92 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 45.01Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.15 50% B 13.08 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 34.79High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 SF GFA 11.15 43% A 6.36 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 16.92Drinking Place 925 1,000 SF GFA 11.34 43% A 6.46 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 17.18Coffee/Donut Shop 937 1,000 SF GFA 42.93 70% A 12.88 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 34.26Sit Down Restaurant 931 1,000 SF GFA 7.49 44% A 4.19 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 11.15

Other RetailFree-Standing Retail Store 815 1,000 SF GFA 5.00 30% C 3.50 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 12.34Garden Center (Nursery) 817 1,000 SF GFA 3.80 30% B 2.66 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 9.38Home Improvement Superstore 862 1,000 SF GFA 2.37 48% A 1.23 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 4.34Pharmacy/Drugstore 881 1,000 SF GFA 10.35 49% A 5.28 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 18.61Shopping Center 820 1,000 SF GFA 3.73 34% A 2.46 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 8.67Department Store 875 1,000 SF GFA 1.78 30% B 1.25 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 4.41Supermarket 850 1,000 SF GFA 10.50 36% A 6.72 7.05 50% 3.53 3.53 23.69

SERVICESBank (Walk-In) 911 1,000 SF GFA 12.13 40% B 7.28 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 19.36Bank (Drive In) 912 Drive-in Lanes 27.41 47% A 14.53 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 38.65Hair Salon 918 1,000 SF GLA 1.45 30% B 1.02 5.32 50% 2.66 2.66 2.71

Key to Sources of Pass-by Rates:A: ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition (June 2004)B: Estimated by Kimley-Horn based on ITE rates for similar categoriesC: ITE rate adjusted upward by KHA based on logical relationship to other categories

Land Use Category


V. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculations. Example 1:

• Development Type - One (1) Unit of Single-Family Housing in Service Area A

Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps – Example 1

Step 1

Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development Unit From Table 8 [Land Use – Vehicle-mile Equivalency Table]

Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single-Family Detached Housing Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.04

Step 2

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit From Table 7, Line 15 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]

Service Area C: $1,225

Step 3

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee

Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Impact Fee = 1 * 4.04 * $1,225 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $4,949.00

Example 2:

• Development Type – 125,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area E

Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps – Example 2

Step 1

Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development Unit From Table 8 [Land Use – Vehicle-mile Equivalency Table]

Development Type: 125,000 square feet of Home Improvement Superstore Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 5.85

Step 2

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit From Table 7, Line 15[Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]

Service Area E: $817

Step 3

Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee

Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Impact Fee = 125 * 4.34 * $817 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $443,222.50


VI. CONCLUSION The City of Georgetown has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be assessed by the City of Georgetown within six (6) service areas. The maximum assessable roadway impact fees calculated in this report are presented in Table 7. This document serves as a guide to the assessment of roadway impact fees pertaining to future development and the City’s need for roadway improvements to accommodate that growth. Following the public hearing process, the City Council may establish an amount to be assessed (if any) up to the maximum established within this report and update the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance accordingly. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this study are appropriate and consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Land Use Assumptions and the proposed Capital Improvements Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process.


APPENDICES

A. CONCEPTUAL LEVEL PROJECT COST PROJECTIONS SERVICE AREA A SERVICE AREA B SERVICE AREA C SERVICE AREA D

SERVICE AREA E SERVICE AREA F

B. CIP SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY

C. EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY

D. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT

2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study November 2009 City of Georgetown, Texas

Appendix A – Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections

Roadway Improvements - Service Area A# Class Project Limits Cost

A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd. 5,504,000$ A-2 MIN Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR 4,200,000$ A-3 MIN Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr. 4,307,000$ A-4 MIN Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln. 5,232,000$ A-5 MIN Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd. 1,318,000$ A-6 MIN Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd. 3,372,000$ A-7 MIN Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr. 1,026,000$ A-8 MIN Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH 195 4,066,000$ A-9 MC FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR 2,995,000$ A-10 MIN Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH-35 7,086,000$ TMC Traffic Management Center 250,000$

TOTAL 39,356,000$

The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City’s design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project.

City of Georgetown - 2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCapital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees

Appendix A - Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections

*Total may be higher than presented in Table 4 (10-Year Roadway Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions) because the cost of some projects are shared between service areas.

NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any futureCapital Improvement Planning within the City of Georgetown.

2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee UpdateCity of Georgetown, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections

City of Georgetown Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee updated: 12/10/2009

Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection

Project Information: Description: Project No. A-1, B-1Name: Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1)Limits: 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 7,910Service Area(s): A, BTIP Project # NN Impact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: Total City contribution for entire project - 8,600,000$ Percent in Service Areas A & B 64% 5,504,000$

-$

Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 5,504,000$

NOTE: These planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Georgetown.

This project consists of the City's contribution to a Williamson County and CAMPO project. (Project Limits were DB Wood Rd. to Jim Hogg Rd; approximately 64% of that project is included in this project.)

2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCity of Georgetown, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections



Project Information: Description: Project No. A-2Name: Lakeway BridgeLimits: Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFRImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,635Service Area(s): ATIP Project # 10

Impact Fee Project Cost SummaryItem Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost

Construction: - Bridge over IH-35 (See C-8) Total Bridge Cost $8.4 Million 4,200,000$


This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four-lane divided minor arterial. In addition, this project includes the construction of the Lakeway Bridge. The newly constructed bridge is anticipated to straighten out the connection between Lakeway Dr. and the NE Inner Loop. The total cost of this project is $8.9 million with $8.4 million for the bridge Cost of the bridge is split with project C-8.





Project Information: Description: Project No. A-3Name: Airport Rd. (1)Limits: IH-35 to Lakeway Dr.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 3,075Service Area(s): A TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,328 cy 17.05$ 261,335$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 16,400 sy 19.50$ 319,800$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 29,042 sy 14.60$ 424,008$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 29,042 sy 3.32$ 96,418$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 16,400 sy 3.83$ 62,812$ 604 6" Topsoil 1,025 cy 19.14$ 19,619$ 704 Hydromulching 6,150 sy 1.94$ 11,931$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 12,300 lf 9.58$ 117,834$ 904 Pvmt markings 6,150 lf 3.12$ 19,188$

Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: 1,332,945$

Major Construction Component Allowances:Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost

√ Mobilization 11% 146,624$ √ Prep ROW 4% 53,318$ √ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 3% 39,988$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 466,531$

Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated - - √ Water Minor Adjustments / Water Quality Ponds 5% 66,647$ √ Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% 66,647$ √ Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 125,000$

Other: None Anticipated - - Allowance Subtotal: 964,755$

Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 2,297,700$ Construction Contingency: 10% 229,770$

Construction Cost TOTAL: 2,528,000$


Construction: - 2,528,000$ Bridge over IH-35 (See C-2) Total Bridge Cost $2.1 Million 1,050,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 505,600$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 223,245$


This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four-lane divided minor arterial. Cost of the bridge is split with project C-2.





Project Information: Description: Project No. A-4Name: Airport Rd. (2)Limits: Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 5,040Service Area(s): A TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 25,122 cy 17.05$ 428,334$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 26,880 sy 19.50$ 524,160$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 47,600 sy 14.60$ 694,960$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 47,600 sy 3.32$ 158,032$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 26,880 sy 3.83$ 102,950$ 604 6" Topsoil 1,680 cy 19.14$ 32,155$ 704 Hydromulching 10,080 sy 1.94$ 19,555$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 20,160 lf 9.58$ 193,133$ 904 Pvmt markings 10,080 lf 3.12$ 31,450$





Other: None Anticipated - - Allowance Subtotal: 1,501,379$




Construction: - 4,055,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 811,000$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 365,904$



This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four-lane divided minor arterial.




Project Information: Description: Project No. A-5Name: Airport Rd. (3)Limits: 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,310Service Area(s): A, ETJ TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,530 cy 17.05$ 111,333$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 6,987 sy 19.50$ 136,240$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 12,372 sy 14.60$ 180,634$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 12,372 sy 3.32$ 41,076$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 6,987 sy 3.83$ 26,759$ 604 6" Topsoil 437 cy 19.14$ 8,358$ 704 Hydromulching 2,620 sy 1.94$ 5,083$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 5,240 lf 9.58$ 50,199$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,620 lf 3.12$ 8,174$

Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: 567,856$



Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated - - √ Water Minor Adjustments / Water Quality Ponds 5% 28,393$ √ Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% 28,393$

Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $0 -$ Other: None Anticipated - -

Allowance Subtotal: 357,749$

Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 925,606$ Construction Contingency: 10% 92,561$






This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four-lane divided minor arterial. (50% in City)




Project Information: Description: Project No. A-6Name: Airport Rd. (4)Limits: 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd. Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 3,190Service Area(s): A, ETJ TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,901 cy 17.05$ 271,108$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 17,013 sy 19.50$ 331,760$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 30,128 sy 14.60$ 439,866$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 30,128 sy 3.32$ 100,024$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 17,013 sy 3.83$ 65,161$ 604 6" Topsoil 1,063 cy 19.14$ 20,352$ 704 Hydromulching 6,380 sy 1.94$ 12,377$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 12,760 lf 9.58$ 122,241$ 904 Pvmt markings 6,380 lf 3.12$ 19,906$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-7Name: Airport Rd. (5)Limits: Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,020Service Area(s): A TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,084 cy 17.05$ 86,687$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 5,440 sy 19.50$ 106,080$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 9,633 sy 14.60$ 140,647$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 9,633 sy 3.32$ 31,983$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 5,440 sy 3.83$ 20,835$ 604 6" Topsoil 340 cy 19.14$ 6,508$ 704 Hydromulching 2,040 sy 1.94$ 3,958$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 4,080 lf 9.58$ 39,086$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,040 lf 3.12$ 6,365$








Construction Cost TOTAL: 793,000$


Construction: - 793,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 158,600$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 74,052$







Project Information: Description: Project No. A-8Name: Berry Creek Dr. Limits: Airport Rd. to SH 195Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 3,880Service Area(s): A TIP Project # KKRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,340 cy 17.05$ 329,749$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 20,693 sy 19.50$ 403,520$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 36,644 sy 14.60$ 535,009$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 36,644 sy 3.32$ 121,660$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 20,693 sy 3.83$ 79,255$ 604 6" Topsoil 1,293 cy 19.14$ 24,754$ 704 Hydromulching 7,760 sy 1.94$ 15,054$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 15,520 lf 9.58$ 148,682$ 904 Pvmt markings 7,760 lf 3.12$ 24,211$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. A-9Name: FM 972 ExtensionLimits: CR 143 to IH-35 SBFRImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 5,100Service Area(s): ATIP Project # TTRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,067 cy 23.76$ 215,424$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 22,667 sy 13.33$ 302,147$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 27,200 sy 8.46$ 230,112$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 27,200 sy 3.32$ 90,304$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 22,667 sy 3.83$ 86,813$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,700 cy 19.14$ 32,538$ 702 Hydromulching 10,200 sy 1.94$ 19,788$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 10,200 lf 9.58$ 97,716$ 902 Pvmt markings 10,200 lf 3.12$ 31,824$



√ Mobilization 11% 121,733$ √ Prep ROW 4% 44,267$

Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% -$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 387,333$








This project consists of the construction of a new major collector.





Project Information: Description: Project No. A-10Name: Northwest Blvd.Limits: Washam Dr. to IH-35Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 1,080Service Area(s): ATIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,383 cy 17.05$ 91,786$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 5,760 sy 19.50$ 112,320$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 10,200 sy 14.60$ 148,920$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 10,200 sy 3.32$ 33,864$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 5,760 sy 3.83$ 22,061$ 604 6" Topsoil 360 cy 19.14$ 6,890$ 704 Hydromulching 2,160 sy 1.94$ 4,190$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 4,320 lf 9.58$ 41,386$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,160 lf 3.12$ 6,739$










Construction: - 840,000$ Bridge over IH-35 (See C-5) Total Bridge Cost $12 Million 6,000,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 168,000$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 78,408$


This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facilty into a four-lane facility. Cost of the bridge is split with project C-5.



Roadway Improvements - Service Area B # Class Project Limits Cost

A-1, B-1 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd. 5,504,000$ B-2 MAJ Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir 1,032,000$ B-3 MAJ DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr. 1,700,000$ B-4 MC Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr. 639,000$

TMC Traffic Management Center 250,000$ TOTAL 9,125,000$









Project Information: Description: Project No. A-1, B-1Name: Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1)Limits: 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 7,910Service Area(s): A, BTIP Project # NN Impact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: Total City contribution for entire project - 8,600,000$ Percent in Service Areas A & B 64% 5,504,000$

-$



This project consists of the City's contribution to a Williamson County and CAMPO project. (Project Limits were DB Wood Rd. to Jim Hogg Rd; approximately 64% of that project is included in this project.)




Project Information: Description: Project No. B-2Name: Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2)Limits: Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 4,475Service Area(s): B, Sun CityTIP Project # NN Impact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: Total City contribution for entire project - 8,600,000$ Percent in Service Area B 12% 1,032,000$

-$



This project consists of the City's contribution to a Williamson County and CAMPO project. (Project Limits were DB Wood Rd. to Jim Hogg Rd; approximately 12% of that project is in Service Area B)




Project Information: Description: Project No. B-3Name: DB Wood Rd.Limits: Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr. Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Future FreewayLength (lf): 500Service Area(s): BTIP Project # 16 AImpact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: Total City contribution for entire project - 1,700,000$

-$



This project consists of the City's contribution from the 2008 Bond to add traffic lanes to DB Wood Road, near the Williams Dr. intersection by HEB. The City estimates the cost of these additional lanes to be $1,700,000.




Project Information: Description: Project No. B-4Name: Serenada Dr.Limits: City Limits to Williams Dr.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 1,150Service Area(s): BTIP Project # IIRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,044 cy 23.76$ 48,576$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 5,111 sy 13.33$ 68,131$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 6,133 sy 8.46$ 51,888$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 6,133 sy 3.32$ 20,363$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 5,111 sy 3.83$ 19,576$ 602 6" Topsoil 383 cy 19.14$ 7,337$ 702 Hydromulching 2,300 sy 1.94$ 4,462$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 2,300 lf 9.58$ 22,034$ 902 Pvmt markings 2,300 lf 3.12$ 7,176$












Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 639,000$




Roadway Improvements - Service Area C# Class Project Limits Cost

C-1 MIN Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave. 3,438,000$ C-2 MIN Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd. 1,054,000$ C-3 MIN CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 3,106,000$ C-4 MIN CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd. 1,418,000$ C-5 MAJ FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave. 8,066,000$ C-6 MIN FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 7,724,000$ C-7 MIN FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR 2,443,000$ C-8 MAJ Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave. 4,200,000$ C-9 MAJ NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR 151 3,515,000$ C-10 MAJ NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM 971 5,101,000$ C-11 MC CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street 450,000$ C-12 MC CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd. 3,317,000$ C-13 MC CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave. 915,000$ C-14 MC Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR 188 3,119,000$ C-15 MC Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop 2,354,000$

C-16, F-17 MIN University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 764,400$ TMC Traffic Management Center 250,000$

TOTAL 51,234,400$









Project Information: Description: Project No. C-1Name: Old Airport Rd.Limits: Austin Ave. to Austin Ave.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 3,255Service Area(s): CTIP Project # O 1Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,225 cy 17.05$ 276,632$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 17,360 sy 19.50$ 338,520$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 30,742 sy 14.60$ 448,828$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 30,742 sy 3.32$ 102,062$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 17,360 sy 3.83$ 66,489$ 604 6" Topsoil 1,085 cy 19.14$ 20,767$ 704 Hydromulching 6,510 sy 1.94$ 12,629$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 13,020 lf 9.58$ 124,732$ 904 Pvmt markings 6,510 lf 3.12$ 20,311$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-2Name: Airport Rd. (6)Limits: IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 310Service Area(s): CTIP Project # OImpact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction:Bridge over IH-35 (See A-3) 2,108,000$ 50% 1,054,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing:ROW/Easement Acquisition:


This project consists of the construction of a new minor arterial. This is the bridge that crosses IH-35. Note this project will become part of a future interchange at IH-35. Cost of the bridge is split with project A-3.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-3Name: CR 151 (1)Limits: Austin Ave. to NE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 2,925Service Area(s): CTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,580 cy 17.05$ 248,587$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 15,600 sy 19.50$ 304,200$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 27,625 sy 14.60$ 403,325$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 27,625 sy 3.32$ 91,715$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 15,600 sy 3.83$ 59,748$ 604 6" Topsoil 975 cy 19.14$ 18,662$ 704 Hydromulching 5,850 sy 1.94$ 11,349$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 11,700 lf 9.58$ 112,086$ 904 Pvmt markings 5,850 lf 3.12$ 18,252$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-4Name: CR 151 (2)Limits: NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,410Service Area(s): C, ETJTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,028 cy 17.05$ 119,832$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 7,520 sy 19.50$ 146,640$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 13,317 sy 14.60$ 194,423$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 13,317 sy 3.32$ 44,211$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 7,520 sy 3.83$ 28,802$ 604 6" Topsoil 470 cy 19.14$ 8,996$ 704 Hydromulching 2,820 sy 1.94$ 5,471$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 5,640 lf 9.58$ 54,031$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,820 lf 3.12$ 8,798$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-5Name: FM 971 (1)Limits: IH-35 to Austin Ave.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 1,325Service Area(s): CTIP Project # QQRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,915 cy 17.05$ 152,003$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 10,600 sy 27.00$ 286,200$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 16,047 sy 14.60$ 234,289$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 16,047 sy 3.32$ 53,277$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 10,600 sy 3.83$ 40,598$ 605 6" Topsoil 1,055 cy 19.14$ 20,194$ 705 Hydromulching 6,331 sy 1.94$ 12,281$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 5,300 lf 9.58$ 50,774$ 905 Pvmt markings 5,300 lf 3.12$ 16,536$











Construction: - 1,525,000$ Bridge over IH-35 (See A-10) Total Bridge Cost $12 Million 6,000,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 305,000$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 236,115$


This project consists of the construction of a new major arterial. Note this project will become part of a future interchange at IH-35. The City anticipates contributing $12 million to the construction of the IH-35 bridge. Cost of the bridge is split with project A-10.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-6Name: FM 971 (2)Limits: Austin Ave. to NE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 7,355Service Area(s): CTIP Project # VRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 36,661 cy 17.05$ 625,079$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 39,227 sy 19.50$ 764,920$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 69,464 sy 14.60$ 1,014,173$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 69,464 sy 3.32$ 230,620$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 39,227 sy 3.83$ 150,238$ 604 6" Topsoil 2,452 cy 19.14$ 46,925$ 704 Hydromulching 14,710 sy 1.94$ 28,537$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 29,420 lf 9.58$ 281,844$ 904 Pvmt markings 14,710 lf 3.12$ 45,895$



√ Mobilization 11% 350,705$ √ Prep ROW 4% 127,529$ √ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 3% 95,647$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 1,115,881$






Construction: - 5,992,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,198,400$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 533,973$


This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facilty into a four-lane facility. Note this project is part of the 2008 Bond and will be constructed as a four-lane facility.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-7Name: FM 971 (3)Limits: NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFRImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 2,430Service Area(s): CTIP Project # VRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,113 cy 17.05$ 206,518$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 12,960 sy 19.50$ 252,720$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 22,950 sy 14.60$ 335,070$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 22,950 sy 3.32$ 76,194$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 12,960 sy 3.83$ 49,637$ 604 6" Topsoil 810 cy 19.14$ 15,503$ 704 Hydromulching 4,860 sy 1.94$ 9,428$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 9,720 lf 9.58$ 93,118$ 904 Pvmt markings 4,860 lf 3.12$ 15,163$












This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facilty into a four-lane facility. Note this project is part of the 2008 Bond and will be constructed as a four-lane facility.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-8Name: Lakeway BridgeLimits: IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 645Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 10


Construction: - -$ Bridge over IH-35 (See A-2) Total Bridge Cost $8.4 Million 4,200,000$



This project includes the construction of the Lakeway Bridge. The newly constructed bridge is anticipated to straighten out the connection between Lakeway Dr. and the NE Inner Loop. The total cost of this project is $8.9 million with $8.4 million for the bridge. Cost of the bridge is split with project A-2.




Project Information: Description: Project No. C-9Name: NE Inner Loop (1)Limits: IH-35 NBFR to CR 151Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 2,350Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 21 / ZRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,812 cy 17.05$ 269,590$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 18,800 sy 27.00$ 507,600$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 28,461 sy 14.60$ 415,532$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 28,461 sy 3.32$ 94,491$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 18,800 sy 3.83$ 72,004$ 605 6" Topsoil 1,871 cy 19.14$ 35,817$ 705 Hydromulching 11,228 sy 1.94$ 21,782$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 9,400 lf 9.58$ 90,052$ 905 Pvmt markings 9,400 lf 3.12$ 29,328$












This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a six-lane divided major arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-10Name: NE Inner Loop (2)Limits: CR 151 to FM 971Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 3,300Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 21 / ZRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,204 cy 17.05$ 378,573$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 26,400 sy 27.00$ 712,800$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 39,967 sy 14.60$ 583,513$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 39,967 sy 3.32$ 132,689$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 26,400 sy 3.83$ 101,112$ 605 6" Topsoil 2,628 cy 19.14$ 50,296$ 705 Hydromulching 15,767 sy 1.94$ 30,587$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 13,200 lf 9.58$ 126,456$ 905 Pvmt markings 13,200 lf 3.12$ 41,184$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-11Name: CR 188 (1)Limits: FM 971 to N. College StreetImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 2,210Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 23 BImpact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: - -$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 450,000$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: -$


This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a major collector. The City of Georgetown contributed $450,000 towards this facility for engineering services related to the bridge crossing.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-12Name: CR 188 (2)Limits: N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 5,385Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 23 BRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,573 cy 23.76$ 227,462$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 23,933 sy 13.33$ 319,031$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 28,720 sy 8.46$ 242,971$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 28,720 sy 3.32$ 95,350$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 23,933 sy 3.83$ 91,665$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,795 cy 19.14$ 34,356$ 702 Hydromulching 10,770 sy 1.94$ 20,894$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 10,770 lf 9.58$ 103,177$ 902 Pvmt markings 10,770 lf 3.12$ 33,602$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-13Name: CR 188 (3)Limits: Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 1,775Service Area(s): CTIP Project # 23 ARoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,156 cy 23.76$ 74,976$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 7,889 sy 13.33$ 105,159$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 9,467 sy 8.46$ 80,088$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 9,467 sy 3.32$ 31,429$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 7,889 sy 3.83$ 30,214$ 602 6" Topsoil 592 cy 19.14$ 11,325$ 702 Hydromulching 3,550 sy 1.94$ 6,887$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 3,550 lf 9.58$ 34,009$ 902 Pvmt markings 3,550 lf 3.12$ 11,076$












This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a major collector.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-14Name: Smith Creek Rd. (1)Limits: Maple St. to CR 188Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 5,415Service Area(s): CTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,627 cy 23.76$ 228,730$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 24,067 sy 13.33$ 320,809$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 28,880 sy 8.46$ 244,325$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 28,880 sy 3.32$ 95,882$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 24,067 sy 3.83$ 92,175$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,805 cy 19.14$ 34,548$ 702 Hydromulching 10,830 sy 1.94$ 21,010$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 10,830 lf 9.58$ 103,751$ 902 Pvmt markings 10,830 lf 3.12$ 33,790$











This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a major collector.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-15Name: Smith Creek Rd. (2)Limits: CR 188 to NE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 3,945Service Area(s): CTIP Project # WRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,013 cy 23.76$ 166,637$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 17,533 sy 13.33$ 233,719$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 21,040 sy 8.46$ 177,998$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 21,040 sy 3.32$ 69,853$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 17,533 sy 3.83$ 67,153$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,315 cy 19.14$ 25,169$ 702 Hydromulching 7,890 sy 1.94$ 15,307$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 7,890 lf 9.58$ 75,586$ 902 Pvmt markings 7,890 lf 3.12$ 24,617$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. C-16, F-17Name: University Ave. (SH 29)Limits: Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 6,895Service Area(s): C, FTIP Project # 8Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 34,369 cy 17.05$ 585,985$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 36,773 sy 19.50$ 717,080$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 65,119 sy 14.60$ 950,744$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 65,119 sy 3.32$ 216,197$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 36,773 sy 3.83$ 140,842$ 604 6" Topsoil 2,298 cy 19.14$ 43,990$ 704 Hydromulching 13,790 sy 1.94$ 26,753$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 27,580 lf 9.58$ 264,216$ 904 Pvmt markings 13,790 lf 3.12$ 43,025$




Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% -$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 1,046,091$






Construction: - 5,536,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% 1,107,200$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1,001,154$

Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (10% City Contribution) 764,400$

This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four-lane divided major arterial. The City anticipates contributing approximately 10% to the cost of this TxDOT facility.



Roadway Improvements - Service Area D# Class Project Limits Cost

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 29 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) 735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West R 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 250,000$

TOTAL 31,919,000$









Project Information: Description: Project No. D-1Name: DB Wood Rd. (2)Limits: Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW BypassImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 735Service Area(s): D TIP Project # 14 ARoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,664 cy 17.05$ 62,465$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 3,920 sy 19.50$ 76,440$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 6,942 sy 14.60$ 101,348$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 6,942 sy 3.32$ 23,046$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 3,920 sy 3.83$ 15,014$ 604 6" Topsoil 245 cy 19.14$ 4,689$ 704 Hydromulching 1,470 sy 1.94$ 2,852$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 2,940 lf 9.58$ 28,165$ 904 Pvmt markings 1,470 lf 3.12$ 4,586$













This project consists of the construction of a new minor arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. D-2Name: DB Wood Rd. (3)Limits: SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH 29Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,050Service Area(s): D TIP Project # 14 ARoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,234 cy 17.05$ 89,236$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 5,600 sy 19.50$ 109,200$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 9,917 sy 14.60$ 144,783$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 9,917 sy 3.32$ 32,923$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 5,600 sy 3.83$ 21,448$ 604 6" Topsoil 350 cy 19.14$ 6,699$ 704 Hydromulching 2,100 sy 1.94$ 4,074$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 4,200 lf 9.58$ 40,236$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,100 lf 3.12$ 6,552$


















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-3Name: Future Major Arterial (SW 2)Limits: City Limits to Leander Rd.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major Arterial Length (lf): 915Service Area(s): D TIP Project # C Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,156 cy 17.05$ 104,968$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 7,320 sy 27.00$ 197,640$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 11,082 sy 14.60$ 161,792$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 11,082 sy 3.32$ 36,791$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 7,320 sy 3.83$ 28,036$ 605 6" Topsoil 729 cy 19.14$ 13,946$ 705 Hydromulching 4,372 sy 1.94$ 8,481$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 3,660 lf 9.58$ 35,063$ 905 Pvmt markings 3,660 lf 3.12$ 11,419$


















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-4Name: Future Major Collector (SW 3)Limits: City Limits to Leander Rd.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 970Service Area(s): D TIP Project # D Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 1,724 cy 23.76$ 40,973$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 4,311 sy 13.33$ 57,467$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 5,173 sy 8.46$ 43,766$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 5,173 sy 3.32$ 17,175$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 4,311 sy 3.83$ 16,512$ 602 6" Topsoil 323 cy 19.14$ 6,189$ 702 Hydromulching 1,940 sy 1.94$ 3,764$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 1,940 lf 9.58$ 18,585$ 902 Pvmt markings 1,940 lf 3.12$ 6,053$


















Project Information: Description: Project No. D-5Name: Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1)Limits: 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 7,550Service Area(s): D TIP Project # DD 1 / DD 2Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 37,633 cy 17.05$ 641,651$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 40,267 sy 19.50$ 785,200$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 71,306 sy 14.60$ 1,041,061$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 71,306 sy 3.32$ 236,734$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 40,267 sy 3.83$ 154,221$ 604 6" Topsoil 2,517 cy 19.14$ 48,169$ 704 Hydromulching 15,100 sy 1.94$ 29,294$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 30,200 lf 9.58$ 289,316$ 904 Pvmt markings 15,100 lf 3.12$ 47,112$












This project consists of the reconstruction of Leander Rd. to a four-lane divided facility.




Project Information: Description: Project No. D-6Name: Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2)Limits: CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 16,335Service Area(s): D, ETJTIP Project # DD 1 / DD 2Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 81,423 cy 17.05$ 1,388,261$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 87,120 sy 19.50$ 1,698,840$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 154,275 sy 14.60$ 2,252,415$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 154,275 sy 3.32$ 512,193$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 87,120 sy 3.83$ 333,670$ 604 6" Topsoil 5,445 cy 19.14$ 104,217$ 704 Hydromulching 32,670 sy 1.94$ 63,380$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 65,340 lf 9.58$ 625,957$ 904 Pvmt markings 32,670 lf 3.12$ 101,930$






Paving and Allowance Subtotal: 12,291,807$ Construction Contingency: 10% 1,229,181$






This project consists of the reconstruction of Leander Rd. to a four-lane divided facility.




Project Information: Description: Project No. D-7Name: Southwest BypassLimits: Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd.Impact Fee Class: MAJ (1/3)Ultimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 3,570Service Area(s): DTIP Project # ARoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost107 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,611 cy 23.76$ 157,080$ 207 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 13,090 sy 27.00$ 353,430$ 307 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 11,900 sy 14.60$ 173,740$ 407 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 11,900 sy 3.32$ 39,508$ 507 One Course Surface Treatment 11,900 sy 4.83$ 57,477$ 607 6" Topsoil 3,570 cy 20.14$ 71,900$ 707 Hydromulching 3,570 sy 1.94$ 6,926$ 807 Machine Laid Curb 0 lf 9.58$ -$ 907 Pvmt markings 3,570 lf 3.12$ 11,138$



√ Mobilization 11% 95,832$ √ Prep ROW 4% 34,848$ √ Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 3% 26,136$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 304,920$ √ Special Drainage Structures Stream Crossing 250K 250,000 √ Water Minor Adjustments / Water Quality Ponds 5% 43,560$ √ Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% 43,560$ √ Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 125,000$







This project consists of the construction of the Southwest Bypass as a two-lane facility between Wolf Ranch Pkwy and Leander Rd. This excludes the 2,515' in the ETJ.



Roadway Improvements - Service Area E# Class Project Limits Cost

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 111 623,000$ E-5 MC Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR 111 263,000$ 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 250,000$ TOTAL 23,040,000$









Project Information: Description: Project No. E-1Name: FM 1460 Limits: Quail Valley Dr. to ETJImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 14,555Service Area(s): E, ETJTIP Project # EE, JJImpact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: 53% of City's $16.9 Million Total Contribution 8,957,000$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: -$ ROW/Easement Acquisition:


This project consists of the reconstruction of FM 1460 from a two-lane asphalt facility to a four-lane facility. This is a 2008 Bond project in which the City will contribute $16.9 Million. Both alignments are shown, but only one cost is utilized. Note that only 40% of the facility is within the City limits.





Project Information: Description: Project No. E-2Name: Rabbit Hill (1)Limits: Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 1,950Service Area(s): ETIP Project # ECRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,467 cy 23.76$ 82,368$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 8,667 sy 13.33$ 115,527$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 10,400 sy 8.46$ 87,984$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 10,400 sy 3.32$ 34,528$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 8,667 sy 3.83$ 33,193$ 602 6" Topsoil 650 cy 19.14$ 12,441$ 702 Hydromulching 3,900 sy 1.94$ 7,566$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 3,900 lf 9.58$ 37,362$ 902 Pvmt markings 3,900 lf 3.12$ 12,168$












This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane poor condition asphalt facility to a major collector.





Project Information: Description: Project No. E-3Name: Rabbit Hill (2)Limits: 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue SpringsImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 1,820Service Area(s): E, ETJTIP Project # ECRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,236 cy 23.76$ 76,877$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 8,089 sy 13.33$ 107,825$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 9,707 sy 8.46$ 82,118$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 9,707 sy 3.32$ 32,226$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 8,089 sy 3.83$ 30,980$ 602 6" Topsoil 607 cy 19.14$ 11,612$ 702 Hydromulching 3,640 sy 1.94$ 7,062$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 3,640 lf 9.58$ 34,871$ 902 Pvmt markings 3,640 lf 3.12$ 11,357$












This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane poor condition asphalt facility to a major collector. (50% in the City)





Project Information: Description: Project No. E-4Name: Rabbit Hill (3)Limits: 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR 111Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 1,210Service Area(s): E, ETJTIP Project # ECRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,151 cy 23.76$ 51,110$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 5,378 sy 13.33$ 71,686$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 6,453 sy 8.46$ 54,595$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 6,453 sy 3.32$ 21,425$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 5,378 sy 3.83$ 20,597$ 602 6" Topsoil 403 cy 19.14$ 7,720$ 702 Hydromulching 2,420 sy 1.94$ 4,695$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 2,420 lf 9.58$ 23,184$ 902 Pvmt markings 2,420 lf 3.12$ 7,550$













This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane poor condition asphalt facility to a major collector. (50% in the City)




Project Information: Description: Project No. E-5Name: Rabbit Hill (4)Limits: 510' N. of CR 111 to CR 111Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 510Service Area(s): ETIP Project # ECRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 907 cy 23.76$ 21,542$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 2,267 sy 13.33$ 30,215$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 2,720 sy 8.46$ 23,011$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 2,720 sy 3.32$ 9,030$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 2,267 sy 3.83$ 8,681$ 602 6" Topsoil 170 cy 19.14$ 3,254$ 702 Hydromulching 1,020 sy 1.94$ 1,979$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 1,020 lf 9.58$ 9,772$ 902 Pvmt markings 1,020 lf 3.12$ 3,182$













This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane poor condition asphalt facility to a major collector.




Project Information: Description: Project No. E-6Name: Westinghouse Rd. Limits: FM 1460 to Maple St.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 3,825Service Area(s): ETIP Project # HH 1Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 25,736 cy 17.05$ 438,801$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 30,600 sy 27.00$ 826,200$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 46,325 sy 14.60$ 676,345$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 46,325 sy 3.32$ 153,799$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 30,600 sy 3.83$ 117,198$ 605 6" Topsoil 3,046 cy 19.14$ 58,297$ 705 Hydromulching 18,275 sy 1.94$ 35,454$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 15,300 lf 9.58$ 146,574$ 905 Pvmt markings 15,300 lf 3.12$ 47,736$











This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane asphalt facility to a major arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. E-7, F-1Name: Maple St. (1)Limits: Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 4,195Service Area(s): E, FTIP Project # WWRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,458 cy 23.76$ 177,197$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 18,644 sy 13.33$ 248,530$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 22,373 sy 8.46$ 189,278$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 22,373 sy 3.32$ 74,279$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 18,644 sy 3.83$ 71,408$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,398 cy 19.14$ 26,764$ 702 Hydromulching 8,390 sy 1.94$ 16,277$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 8,390 lf 9.58$ 80,376$ 902 Pvmt markings 8,390 lf 3.12$ 26,177$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. E-8, F-2Name: Maple St. (2)Limits: Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 4,435Service Area(s): E, FTIP Project # WWRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,884 cy 23.76$ 187,334$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 19,711 sy 13.33$ 262,749$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 23,653 sy 8.46$ 200,107$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 23,653 sy 3.32$ 78,529$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 19,711 sy 3.83$ 75,494$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,478 cy 19.14$ 28,295$ 702 Hydromulching 8,870 sy 1.94$ 17,208$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 8,870 lf 9.58$ 84,975$ 902 Pvmt markings 8,870 lf 3.12$ 27,674$















Roadway Improvements - Service Area F# Class Project Limits Cost

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 110 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 29 2,315,000$ F-11 MAJ CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 449,000$ 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 104 665' 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 130 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 250,000$

TOTAL 51,374,400$









Project Information: Description: Project No. E-7, F-1Name: Maple St. (1)Limits: Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 4,195Service Area(s): E, FTIP Project # WWRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,458 cy 23.76$ 177,197$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 18,644 sy 13.33$ 248,530$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 22,373 sy 8.46$ 189,278$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 22,373 sy 3.32$ 74,279$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 18,644 sy 3.83$ 71,408$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,398 cy 19.14$ 26,764$ 702 Hydromulching 8,390 sy 1.94$ 16,277$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 8,390 lf 9.58$ 80,376$ 902 Pvmt markings 8,390 lf 3.12$ 26,177$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. E-8, F-2Name: Maple St. (2)Limits: Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd.Impact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 4,435Service Area(s): E, FTIP Project # WWRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,884 cy 23.76$ 187,334$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 19,711 sy 13.33$ 262,749$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 23,653 sy 8.46$ 200,107$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 23,653 sy 3.32$ 78,529$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 19,711 sy 3.83$ 75,494$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,478 cy 19.14$ 28,295$ 702 Hydromulching 8,870 sy 1.94$ 17,208$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 8,870 lf 9.58$ 84,975$ 902 Pvmt markings 8,870 lf 3.12$ 27,674$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-3Name: Westinghouse Rd. (2) Limits: Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 405Service Area(s): FTIP Project # HH 1Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,725 cy 17.05$ 46,461$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 3,240 sy 27.00$ 87,480$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 4,905 sy 14.60$ 71,613$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 4,905 sy 3.32$ 16,285$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 3,240 sy 3.83$ 12,409$ 605 6" Topsoil 323 cy 19.14$ 6,173$ 705 Hydromulching 1,935 sy 1.94$ 3,754$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 1,620 lf 9.58$ 15,520$ 905 Pvmt markings 1,620 lf 3.12$ 5,054$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-4Name: Westinghouse Rd. (3) Limits: 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 1,815Service Area(s): F, ETJTIP Project # HH 1Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,212 cy 17.05$ 208,215$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 14,520 sy 27.00$ 392,040$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 21,982 sy 14.60$ 320,932$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 21,982 sy 3.32$ 72,979$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 14,520 sy 3.83$ 55,612$ 605 6" Topsoil 1,445 cy 19.14$ 27,663$ 705 Hydromulching 8,672 sy 1.94$ 16,823$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 7,260 lf 9.58$ 69,551$ 905 Pvmt markings 7,260 lf 3.12$ 22,651$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-5Name: Southwestern Blvd. (1)Limits: Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,335Service Area(s): FTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,654 cy 17.05$ 113,457$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 7,120 sy 19.50$ 138,840$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 12,608 sy 14.60$ 184,082$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 12,608 sy 3.32$ 41,860$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 7,120 sy 3.83$ 27,270$ 604 6" Topsoil 445 cy 19.14$ 8,517$ 704 Hydromulching 2,670 sy 1.94$ 5,180$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 5,340 lf 9.58$ 51,157$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,670 lf 3.12$ 8,330$












This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane asphalt facility to a minor arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-6Name: Southwestern Blvd. (2)Limits: 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner LoopImpact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Minor ArterialLength (lf): 1,380Service Area(s): F, ETJTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,879 cy 17.05$ 117,282$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 7,360 sy 19.50$ 143,520$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 13,033 sy 14.60$ 190,287$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 13,033 sy 3.32$ 43,271$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 7,360 sy 3.83$ 28,189$ 604 6" Topsoil 460 cy 19.14$ 8,804$ 704 Hydromulching 2,760 sy 1.94$ 5,354$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 5,520 lf 9.58$ 52,882$ 904 Pvmt markings 2,760 lf 3.12$ 8,611$












This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane asphalt facility to a minor arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-7Name: SE Inner Loop (1)Limits: Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 4,010Service Area(s): FTIP Project # ARoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 26,981 cy 17.05$ 460,024$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 32,080 sy 27.00$ 866,160$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 48,566 sy 14.60$ 709,057$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 48,566 sy 3.32$ 161,238$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 32,080 sy 3.83$ 122,866$ 605 6" Topsoil 3,193 cy 19.14$ 61,117$ 705 Hydromulching 19,159 sy 1.94$ 37,168$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 16,040 lf 9.58$ 153,663$ 905 Pvmt markings 16,040 lf 3.12$ 50,045$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-8Name: SE Inner Loop (2)Limits: Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR 110Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 1,660Service Area(s): F, ETJTIP Project # 19 BRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,169 cy 17.05$ 190,434$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 13,280 sy 27.00$ 358,560$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 20,104 sy 14.60$ 293,525$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 20,104 sy 3.32$ 66,747$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 13,280 sy 3.83$ 50,862$ 605 6" Topsoil 1,322 cy 19.14$ 25,300$ 705 Hydromulching 7,931 sy 1.94$ 15,386$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 6,640 lf 9.58$ 63,611$ 905 Pvmt markings 6,640 lf 3.12$ 20,717$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-9Name: SE Inner Loop (3)Limits: 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr.Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 3,165Service Area(s): FTIP Project # 19 BRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,295 cy 17.05$ 363,086$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 25,320 sy 27.00$ 683,640$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 38,332 sy 14.60$ 559,642$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 38,332 sy 3.32$ 127,261$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 25,320 sy 3.83$ 96,976$ 605 6" Topsoil 2,520 cy 19.14$ 48,238$ 705 Hydromulching 15,122 sy 1.94$ 29,336$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 12,660 lf 9.58$ 121,283$ 905 Pvmt markings 12,660 lf 3.12$ 39,499$
















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-10Name: SE Inner Loop (4)Limits: Belmont Dr. to SH 29Impact Fee Class: MAJ (1/2)Ultimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 2,940Service Area(s): FTIP Project # 19 BRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost108 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,985 cy 23.76$ 189,728$ 208 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 11,760 sy 27.00$ 317,520$ 308 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 14,373 cy 14.60$ 209,851$ 408 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 14,373 sy 5.00$ 71,867$ 508 One Course Surface Treatment 11,760 sy 5.00$ 58,800$ 608 6" Topsoil 517 cy 19.14$ 9,900$ 708 Hydromulching 3,103 sy 1.94$ 6,020$ 808 Machine Laid Curb 5,880 lf 9.58$ 56,330$ 908 Pvmt markings 5,880 lf 3.12$ 18,346$











This project consists of the widening of an existing three-lane asphalt facility into a six-lane divided major arterial.





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-11Name: CR 110 (1)Limits: SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial 1Impact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 300Service Area(s): FTIP Project # 18Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,019 cy 17.05$ 34,416$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 2,400 sy 27.00$ 64,800$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 3,633 sy 14.60$ 53,047$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 3,633 sy 3.32$ 12,063$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 2,400 sy 3.83$ 9,192$ 605 6" Topsoil 239 cy 19.14$ 4,572$ 705 Hydromulching 1,433 sy 1.94$ 2,781$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 1,200 lf 9.58$ 11,496$ 905 Pvmt markings 1,200 lf 3.12$ 3,744$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-12Name: CR 110 (2)Limits: 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City LimitsImpact Fee Class: MAJUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 1,285Service Area(s): F, ETJTIP Project # 18Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost105 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,646 cy 17.05$ 147,414$ 205 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 10,280 sy 27.00$ 277,560$ 305 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 15,563 sy 14.60$ 227,217$ 405 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 15,563 sy 3.32$ 51,668$ 505 One Course Surface Treatment 10,280 sy 3.83$ 39,372$ 605 6" Topsoil 1,023 cy 19.14$ 19,585$ 705 Hydromulching 6,139 sy 1.94$ 11,911$ 805 Machine Laid Curb 5,140 lf 9.58$ 49,241$ 905 Pvmt markings 5,140 lf 3.12$ 16,037$












This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a six-lane divided major arterial. (50% in the City)





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-13Name: Future CollectorLimits: Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFRImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 5,455Service Area(s): FTIP Project # T1Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,698 cy 23.76$ 230,419$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 24,244 sy 13.33$ 323,178$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 29,093 sy 8.46$ 246,130$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 29,093 sy 3.32$ 96,590$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 24,244 sy 3.83$ 92,856$ 602 6" Topsoil 1,818 cy 19.14$ 34,803$ 702 Hydromulching 10,910 sy 1.94$ 21,165$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 10,910 lf 9.58$ 104,518$ 902 Pvmt markings 10,910 lf 3.12$ 34,039$

















Project Information: Description: Project No. F-14Name: CR 104 Limits: 665' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City LimitsImpact Fee Class: MCUltimate Class: Major CollectorLength (lf): 2,545Service Area(s): FTIP Project # PPRoadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost102 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,524 cy 23.76$ 107,501$ 202 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) 11,311 sy 13.33$ 150,777$ 302 Flexible Base (6" Comp. Depth) 13,573 sy 8.46$ 114,830$ 402 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 13,573 sy 3.32$ 45,063$ 502 One Course Surface Treatment 11,311 sy 3.83$ 43,322$ 602 6" Topsoil 848 cy 19.14$ 16,237$ 702 Hydromulching 5,090 sy 1.94$ 9,875$ 802 Machine Laid Curb 5,090 lf 9.58$ 48,762$ 902 Pvmt markings 5,090 lf 3.12$ 15,881$













This project consists of the reconstruction of a two-lane chip sealed facility into a major collector.





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-15Name: SE Arterial 1Limits: Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MAJ (1/2)Ultimate Class: Future FreewayLength (lf): 4,250Service Area(s): FTIP Project #Impact Fee Project Cost Summary

Item Description Notes: Allowance Item CostConstruction: - 4,020,900$ Engineering/Survey/Testing: 502,613$ ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1,389,300$


This project consists of the City's contribution from the 2008 Bond for the construction of two-lanes of the SE Arterial. The City estimates the cost of these additional lanes to be $6,000,000.





Project Information: Description: Project No. F-16Name: SE Arterial 1 (2)Limits: Southwestern Blvd. to SH 130Impact Fee Class: MAJ (1/2)Ultimate Class: Future FreewayLength (lf): 10,755Service Area(s): FTIP Project #Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost108 Unclassified Street Excavation 29,211 cy 23.76$ 694,056$ 208 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (6.5" Thick) 43,020 sy 27.00$ 1,161,540$ 308 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 52,580 cy 14.60$ 767,668$ 408 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 52,580 sy 5.00$ 262,900$ 508 One Course Surface Treatment 43,020 sy 5.00$ 215,100$ 608 6" Topsoil 1,892 cy 19.14$ 36,214$ 708 Hydromulching 11,353 sy 1.94$ 22,024$ 808 Machine Laid Curb 21,510 lf 9.58$ 206,066$ 908 Pvmt markings 21,510 lf 3.12$ 67,111$




Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% -$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 1,201,438$ √ Special Drainage Structures Two Stream Crossings - 1,000,000 √ Water Minor Adjustments / Water Quality Ponds 5% 171,634$ √ Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% 171,634$ √ Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 500,000$







This project consists of the construction of two-lanes of the SE Arterial. This is an extension of the two-lane facility that was constructed as part of the 2008 Bond.





Project Information: Description: Project No. C-16, F-17Name: University Ave. (SH 29)Limits: Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd.Impact Fee Class: MINUltimate Class: Major ArterialLength (lf): 6,895Service Area(s): C, FTIP Project # 8Roadway Construction Cost ProjectionNo. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost104 Unclassified Street Excavation 34,369 cy 17.05$ 585,985$ 204 HMAC Pvmt, Type D (2.0" Comp. Depth) (4.5" Thick) 36,773 sy 19.50$ 717,080$ 304 Flexible Base (12" Comp. Depth) 65,119 sy 14.60$ 950,744$ 404 Lime Treated Subgrade (6" Compacted Depth) 65,119 sy 3.32$ 216,197$ 504 One Course Surface Treatment 36,773 sy 3.83$ 140,842$ 604 6" Topsoil 2,298 cy 19.14$ 43,990$ 704 Hydromulching 13,790 sy 1.94$ 26,753$ 804 Machine Laid Curb 27,580 lf 9.58$ 264,216$ 904 Pvmt markings 13,790 lf 3.12$ 43,025$




Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% -$ √ Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% 1,046,091$







Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (10% City Contribution) 764,400$

This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four-lane divided major arterial. The City anticipates contributing approximately 10% to the cost of this TxDOT facility.




Appendix B – CIP Service Units of Supply

Service Area A 12/10/2009

VEH-MI VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESSLENGTH CAPACITY SUPPLY TOTAL CAPACITY

(MI) PK-HR PK-HR DEMAND PK-HRPER LN TOTAL PK-HR VEH-MI

A-1, B-1 Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd. 1.50 6 MAJ 2,600 50% 700 3,150 1,950 1,200 5,504,000$ 2,752,000$ A-2 Lakeway Bridge Airport Rd. to IH-35 SBFR 0.31 4 MIN 882 100% 650 806 273 533 4,200,000$ 4,200,000$ A-3 Airport Rd. (1) IH-35 to Lakeway Dr. 0.58 4 MIN 634 100% 650 1,508 368 1,140 4,307,000$ 4,307,000$ A-4 Airport Rd. (2) Lakeway Dr. to 200' S. of Vortac Ln. 0.95 4 MIN 634 100% 650 2,470 602 1,868 5,232,000$ 5,232,000$ A-5 Airport Rd. (3) 200' S. of Vortac Ln. to 160' N. of Cavu Rd. 0.25 4 MIN 634 50% 650 325 79 246 1,318,000$ 659,000$ A-6 Airport Rd. (4) 690' S. of Brangus Rd. to Indian Mound Rd. 0.60 4 MIN 634 50% 650 780 190 590 3,372,000$ 1,686,000$ A-7 Airport Rd. (5) Indian Mound Rd. to Berry Creek Dr. 0.19 4 MIN 634 100% 650 494 120 374 1,026,000$ 1,026,000$ A-8 Berry Creek Dr. Airport Rd. to SH 195 0.73 4 MIN 395 100% 650 1,898 288 1,610 4,066,000$ 4,066,000$ A-9 FM 972 Extension CR 143 to IH-35 SBFR 0.97 4 MC 0 100% 550 2,134 0 2,134 2,995,000$ 2,995,000$

A-10 Northwest Blvd. Washam Dr. to IH-35 0.20 4 MIN 322 100% 650 520 64 456 7,086,000$ 7,086,000$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

14,085 3,936 10,149 39,356,000$ 34,040,250$ 19,083$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA A 34,059,333$ IMPACT FEE STUDY COST

SUBTOTAL

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

City of Georgetown - 2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study

CIP Service Units of Supply

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST IN SERVICE

AREA

Project ID # LIMITS LANESROADWAY IMPACT FEE

CLASSIFICATION

2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCity of Georgetown, Texas Appendix B - CIP Units of Supply

Service Area B 12/10/2009



A-1, B-1 Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (1) 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir. to DB Wood Rd. 1.50 6 MAJ 2,600 50% 700 3,150 1,950 1,200 5,504,000$ 2,752,000$ B-2 Williams Dr. (RM 2338) (2) Jim Hogg Rd. to 495' S. of Casa Loma Cir 0.85 6 MAJ 2,600 50% 700 1,785 1,105 680 1,032,000$ 516,000$ B-3 DB Wood Rd. Intersection Improvements at Williams Dr. 0.09 6 MAJ 850 100% 700 378 77 302 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ B-4 Serenada Dr. City Limits to Williams Dr. 0.22 4 MC 0 100% 550 484 0 484 639,000$ 639,000$

TMC* Traffic Management Center 0 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$ 5,797 3,132 2,666 9,125,000$ 5,638,250$

19,083$ TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA B 5,657,333$

IMPACT FEE STUDY COST


AREA

SUBTOTAL



Project ID # ROADWAY LIMITS LANES IMPACT FEE

CLASSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST


Service Area C 12/10/2009



C-1 Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. to Austin Ave. 0.62 4 MIN 550 100% 650 1,612 341 1,271 3,438,000$ 3,438,000$ C-2 Airport Rd. (6) IH-35 SBFR to Old Airport Rd. 0.06 4 MIN 0 100% 650 156 0 156 1,054,000$ 1,054,000$ C-3 CR 151 (1) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 0.55 4 MIN 550 100% 650 1,430 303 1,128 3,106,000$ 3,106,000$ C-4 CR 151 (2) NE Inner Loop to Crystal Knoll Blvd. 0.27 4 MIN 550 50% 650 351 74 277 1,418,000$ 709,000$ C-5 FM 971 (1) IH-35 to Austin Ave. 0.25 6 MAJ 0 100% 700 1,050 0 1,050 8,066,000$ 8,066,000$ C-6 FM 971 (2) Austin Ave. to NE Inner Loop 1.39 4 MIN 680 100% 650 3,614 945 2,669 7,724,000$ 7,724,000$ C-7 FM 971 (3) NE Inner Loop to SH 130 SBFR 0.46 4 MIN 510 100% 650 1,196 235 961 2,443,000$ 2,443,000$ C-8 Lakeway Bridge IH-35 SBFR to Austin Ave. 0.12 6 MAJ 0 100% 700 504 0 504 4,200,000$ 4,200,000$ C-9 NE Inner Loop (1) IH-35 NBFR to CR 151 0.45 6 MAJ 320 100% 700 1,890 144 1,746 3,515,000$ 3,515,000$

C-10 NE Inner Loop (2) CR 151 to FM 971 0.63 6 MAJ 320 100% 700 2,646 202 2,444 5,101,000$ 5,101,000$ C-11 CR 188 (1) FM 971 to N. College Street 0.42 4 MC 20 100% 550 924 8 916 450,000$ 450,000$ C-12 CR 188 (2) N. College Street to Smith Creek Rd. 1.02 4 MC 0 100% 550 2,244 0 2,244 3,317,000$ 3,317,000$ C-13 CR 188 (3) Smith Creek Rd. to University Ave. 0.34 4 MC 436 100% 550 748 148 600 915,000$ 915,000$ C-14 Smith Creek Rd. (1) Maple St. to CR 188 1.03 4 MC 436 100% 550 2,266 449 1,817 3,119,000$ 3,119,000$ C-15 Smith Creek Rd. (2) CR 188 to NE Inner Loop 0.75 4 MC 0 100% 550 1,650 0 1,650 2,354,000$ 2,354,000$

C-16, F-17 University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 4 MIN 1,230 50% 650 1,703 806 897 764,400$ 382,200$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

23,984 3,655 20,329 51,234,400$ 49,924,450$ 19,083$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA C 49,943,533$ IMPACT FEE STUDY COST


AREA

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST


Service Area D 12/10/2009



D-1 DB Wood Rd. (2) Future SW Bypass to 735' E. of SW Bypass 0.14 4 MIN 0 100% 650 364 0 364 780,000$ 780,000$ D-2 DB Wood Rd. (3) SH 29 to 1050' S. of SH 29 0.20 4 MIN 40 100% 650 520 8 512 1,115,000$ 1,115,000$ D-3 Future Major Arterial (SW 2) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.17 6 MAJ 0 100% 700 714 0 714 1,427,000$ 1,427,000$ D-4 Future Major Collector (SW 3) City Limits to Leander Rd. 0.18 4 MC 0 100% 550 396 0 396 539,000$ 539,000$ D-5 Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (1) 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector to Norwood West Rd. 1.43 4 MIN 850 100% 650 3,718 1,216 2,503 7,921,000$ 7,921,000$ D-6 Leander Rd. (RM 2243) (2) CR 174 to 1,735' E. of Future Major Collector 3.09 4 MIN 850 50% 650 4,017 1,313 2,704 17,411,000$ 8,705,500$ D-7 Southwest Bypass Wolf Ranch Pkwy. to Leander Rd. 0.68 2 MAJ (1/3) 0 100% 650 884 0 884 2,476,000$ 2,476,000$

TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$ 10,613 2,537 8,076 31,669,000$ 22,994,750$

19,083$ TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA D 23,013,833$

IMPACT FEE STUDY COST


AREA

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST


Service Area E 12/10/2009



E-1 FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. to ETJ 2.76 4 MIN 760 50% 650 3,588 1,049 2,539 8,957,000$ 4,478,500$ E-2 Rabbit Hill (1) Blue Springs Blvd. to 1,950' S. of Blue Springs Blvd. 0.37 4 MC 69 100% 550 814 26 788 1,005,000$ 1,005,000$ E-3 Rabbit Hill (2) 1,950' S. of Blue Springs to 3,770' S. of Blue Springs 0.34 4 MC 69 50% 550 374 12 362 938,000$ 469,000$ E-4 Rabbit Hill (3) 280' N. of Commerce Blvd. to 510' N. of CR 111 0.23 4 MC 69 50% 550 253 8 245 623,000$ 311,500$ E-5 Rabbit Hill (4) 510' N. of CR 111 to CR 111 0.10 4 MC 69 100% 550 220 7 213 263,000$ 263,000$ E-6 Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 to Maple St. 0.72 6 MAJ 80 100% 700 3,024 58 2,966 5,886,000$ 5,886,000$

E-7, F-1 Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 4 MC 0 50% 550 869 0 869 2,492,000$ 1,246,000$ E-8, F-2 Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 4 MC 0 50% 550 924 0 924 2,626,000$ 1,313,000$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

10,066 1,158 8,908 23,040,000$ 15,003,250$ 19,083$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA E 15,022,333$ IMPACT FEE STUDY COST


AREA

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST


Service Area F 12/10/2009



E-7, F-1 Maple St. (1) Britanna Blvd. to SE Inner Loop 0.79 4 MC 0 50% 550 869 0 869 2,492,000$ 1,246,000$ E-8, F-2 Maple St. (2) Pinnacle Dr. to Westinghouse Rd. 0.84 4 MC 0 50% 550 924 0 924 2,626,000$ 1,313,000$

F-3 Westinghouse Rd. (2) Maple St. to 405' east of Maple St. 0.08 6 MAJ 80 100% 700 336 6 330 606,000$ 606,000$ F-4 Westinghouse Rd. (3) 405' E. of Maple St. to 2,220' E. of Maple St. 0.34 6 MAJ 80 50% 700 714 14 700 2,715,000$ 1,357,500$ F-5 Southwestern Blvd. (1) Raintree Dr. to 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop 0.25 4 MIN 121 100% 650 650 30 620 1,343,000$ 1,343,000$ F-6 Southwestern Blvd. (2) 1,380' N. of SE Inner Loop to SE Inner Loop 0.26 4 MIN 121 50% 650 338 16 322 1,388,000$ 694,000$ F-7 SE Inner Loop (1) Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.76 6 MAJ 527 100% 700 3,192 401 2,791 6,163,000$ 6,163,000$ F-8 SE Inner Loop (2) Southwestern Blvd. to 185' E. of CR 110 0.31 6 MAJ 554 50% 700 651 86 565 2,483,000$ 1,241,500$ F-9 SE Inner Loop (3) 185' E. of CR 110 to Belmont Dr. 0.60 6 MAJ 554 100% 700 2,520 332 2,188 4,900,000$ 4,900,000$ F-10 SE Inner Loop (4) Belmont Dr. to SH 29 0.56 6 MAJ (1/2) 554 100% 700 2,352 310 2,042 2,315,000$ 2,315,000$ F-11 CR 110 (1) SE Arterial 1 to 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 0.06 6 MAJ 121 100% 700 252 7 245 449,000$ 449,000$ F-12 CR 110 (2) 300' S. of SE Arterial 1 to City Limits 0.24 6 MAJ 121 50% 700 504 15 489 1,923,000$ 961,500$ F-13 Future Collector Existing CR 104 (City Limits) to SH 130 SBFR 1.03 4 MC 0 100% 550 2,266 0 2,266 3,356,000$ 3,356,000$ F-14 CR 104 665' E. of SH 130 NBFR to City Limits 0.48 4 MC 70 100% 550 1,056 34 1,022 1,412,000$ 1,412,000$ F-15 SE Arterial 1 Maple St. to Southwestern Blvd. 0.80 6 MAJ (1/2) 0 100% 700 3,360 0 3,360 6,000,000$ 6,000,000$ F-16 SE Arterial 1 (2) Southwestern Blvd. to SH 130 2.04 6 MAJ (1/2) 0 100% 700 8,568 0 8,568 10,189,000$ 10,189,000$

C-16, F-17 University Ave. (SH 29) Haven Ln. to 310' E. of Reinhardt Blvd. 1.31 4 MIN 1,230 50% 650 1,703 806 897 764,400$ 382,200$ TMC* Traffic Management Center 12.5% 250,000$ 31,250$

30,255 2,056 28,199 51,374,400$ 43,959,950$ 19,083$

TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA F 43,979,033$ IMPACT FEE STUDY COST


AREA

SUBTOTAL




CLASSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR

VOLUME

% IN SERVICE

AREA

TOTAL PROJECT COST



Appendix C – Existing Facilities Inventory

Service Area A% IN

ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH LENGTH TYPE SERVICE(ft) (mi) AREA

NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBRM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 440' south of Casa Loma Circle Woodlake Dr. 4,450 0.84 1 1 2U-H 1,300 1,300 50% 800 800 337 337 548 548 -211 -211 211 211RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Woodlake Dr. Wildwood Dr. 2,120 0.40 1 1 2U-H 1,300 1,300 50% 800 800 161 161 261 261 -100 -100 100 100RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Wildwood Dr. DB Wood Rd. 1,340 0.25 1 1 2U-H 1,300 1,300 50% 800 800 102 102 165 165 -63 -63 63 63RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) DB Wood Rd. Country Rd. 4,040 0.77 2 2 5U 1,450 1,450 50% 650 650 497 497 555 555 -57 -57 57 57RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Country Rd. Serenada Dr. 2,110 0.40 2 2 5U 1,450 1,450 50% 650 650 260 260 290 290 -30 -30 30 30RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Serenada Dr. Lakeway Dr. 4,100 0.78 2 2 5U 1,450 1,450 50% 650 650 505 505 563 563 -58 -58 58 58RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Lakeway Dr. Rivery Blvd. 4,785 0.91 2 2 5U 1,600 1,600 50% 650 650 589 589 725 725 -136 -136 136 136RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Rivery Blvd. IH-35 SBFR 1,755 0.33 2 2 5U 1,600 1,600 50% 650 650 216 216 266 266 -50 -50 50 50Verde Vista Heritage Oaks Bend Wildwood Dr. 720 0.14 1 1 2U 36 69 100% 475 475 65 65 5 9 60 55 Verde Vista Wildwood Dr. Shell Rd. 170 0.03 1 1 2U 101 99 100% 475 475 15 15 3 3 12 12 Wildwood Dr. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Verde Vista 1,605 0.30 1 1 2U 160 100 100% 475 475 144 144 49 30 96 114 Shell Rd. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Verde Vista 1,710 0.32 2 2 5U 315 395 100% 650 650 421 421 102 128 319 293 Shell Rd. Verde Vista Sonora Trace 920 0.17 2 2 5U 250 240 100% 650 650 227 227 44 42 183 185 Shell Rd. Sonora Trace Westbury Ln. 2,245 0.43 1 1 2U 250 240 100% 475 475 202 202 106 102 96 100 Shell Rd. Westbury Ln. Sycamore St. 1,125 0.21 1 1 2U 245 225 50% 475 475 51 51 26 24 25 27 Shell Rd. Sycamore St. 245' north of Sycamore St. 245 0.05 1 1 2U 245 225 50% 475 475 11 11 6 5 5 6 CR 143 SH 195 FM 972 Extension 6,250 1.18 1 1 2U 101 101 50% 475 475 281 281 60 60 221 221 CR 143 FM 972 Extension I-35 NBFR 4,790 0.91 1 1 2U 50 50 50% 475 475 215 215 23 23 193 193 SH 195 Shell Rd. 1,475' south of Shell Rd. 1,475 0.28 1 1 3U 590 590 50% 550 550 77 77 82 82 -6 -6 6 6SH 195 1,475' south of Shell Rd. Airport Rd. 8,045 1.52 1 1 2U 590 590 100% 475 475 724 724 899 899 -175 -175 175 175SH 195 Airport Rd. IH-35 SBFR 811 0.15 1 1 2U 590 590 100% 475 475 73 73 91 91 -18 -18 18 18SH 195 IH-35 SBFR IH-35 NBFR 925 0.18 2 2 4D 590 590 100% 650 650 228 228 103 103 124 124 Serenada Dr. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 535' east of RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 535 0.10 1 1 2U 166 166 100% 475 475 48 48 17 17 31 31 Serenada Dr. 405' west of Northwest Blvd. Northwest Blvd. 405 0.08 1 1 2U 132 132 50% 475 475 18 18 5 5 13 13 Serenada Dr. Northwest Blvd. 185' west of Luna Tr. 1,375 0.26 1 1 2U 132 132 50% 475 475 62 62 17 17 45 45 Serenada Dr. 185' west of Luna Tr. Luna Tr. 185 0.04 1 1 2U 132 132 100% 475 475 17 17 5 5 12 12 Serenada Dr. Luna Tr. 2795' northeast of Luna Tr. 2,795 0.53 1 1 2U-N 132 132 100% 250 250 132 132 70 70 62 62 Luna Tr. Shinnecock Hills Dr. Serenada Dr. 3,275 0.62 1 1 2U-N 72 44 100% 250 250 155 155 45 27 110 128 Lakeway Dr. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Northwest Blvd. 2,890 0.55 1 1 2U 411 411 100% 475 475 260 260 225 225 35 35 Lakeway Dr. Northwest Blvd. Airport Rd. 5,945 1.13 1 1 2U 441 441 100% 475 475 535 535 497 497 38 38 Lakeway Dr. Airport Rd. IH-35 SBFR 1,695 0.32 1 1 2U 441 441 100% 475 475 152 152 142 142 11 11 Northwest Blvd. Serenada Dr. Lakeway Dr. 5,370 1.02 1 1 2U 56 56 100% 475 475 483 483 57 57 426 426 Northwest Blvd. Lakeway Dr. IH-35 SBFR 6,465 1.22 1 1 2U 161 161 100% 475 475 582 582 197 197 384 384 Airport Rd. IH-35 SBFR Lakeway Dr. 3,075 0.58 1 1 2U 317 317 100% 475 475 277 277 185 185 92 92 Airport Rd. Lakeway Dr. 205' south of Vortac Ln. 5,040 0.95 1 1 2U 317 317 100% 475 475 453 453 303 303 151 151 Airport Rd. 205' south of Vortac Ln. 160' north of Cavu Rd. 1,310 0.25 1 1 2U 317 317 50% 475 475 59 59 39 39 20 20 Airport Rd. 625' south of Brangus Rd. Brangus Rd. 625 0.12 1 1 2U 317 317 50% 475 475 28 28 19 19 9 9 Airport Rd. Brangus Rd. Indian Mound Rd. 2,565 0.49 1 1 2U 317 317 50% 475 475 115 115 77 77 38 38 Airport Rd. Indian Mound Rd. 475' south of SH 195 4,425 0.84 1 1 2U 165 230 100% 475 475 398 398 138 193 260 205 Airport Rd. 475' south of SH 195 325' south of SH 195 150 0.03 1 1 2U 165 230 50% 475 475 7 7 2 3 4 3Airport Rd. 325' south of SH 195 SH 195 325 0.06 1 1 2U 165 230 100% 475 475 29 29 10 14 19 15SUBTOTAL 104,186 19.73

DEFICIENCIESPK-HRVEH-MI

DEMAND CAPACITYPK-HRPK-HR

TOTAL VEH-MITOTAL

EXISTLANES

PER LN

CAPACITYPK-HR

PEAKHOURVOL

1,8094,33814,08318,421

City of Georgetown - 2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact FeeExisting Roadway Facilities Inventory

PM VEH-MIVEH-MI EXISTINGEXCESS

12/10/2009

VEH-MISUPPLYPK-HR

2008 - 2009 Roadway Impact Fee StudyCity of Georgetown, Texas Appendix C - Existing Facilities Inventory

Service Area B% IN


NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBRM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Jim Hogg Rd. Del Webb Blvd. 3,095 0.59 1 1 2U-H 1300 1,300 50% 800 800 234 234 381 381 -147 -147 147 147RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Del Webb Blvd. 440' south of Casa Loma Circle 1,380 0.26 1 1 2U-H 1300 1,300 50% 800 800 105 105 170 170 -65 -65 65 65RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 440' south of Casa Loma Circle Woodlake Dr. 4,450 0.84 1 1 2U-H 1300 1,300 50% 800 800 337 337 548 548 -211 -211 211 211RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Woodlake Dr. Wildwood Dr. 2,120 0.40 1 1 2U-H 1300 1,300 50% 800 800 161 161 261 261 -100 -100 100 100RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Wildwood Dr. DB Wood Rd. 1,340 0.25 1 1 2U-H 1300 1,300 50% 800 800 102 102 165 165 -63 -63 63 63RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) DB Wood Rd. Country Rd. 4,040 0.77 2 2 5U 1450 1,450 50% 650 650 497 497 555 555 -57 -57 57 57RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Country Rd. Serenada Dr. 2,110 0.40 2 2 5U 1450 1,450 50% 650 650 260 260 290 290 -30 -30 30 30RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Serenada Dr. Lakeway Dr. 4,100 0.78 2 2 5U 1450 1,450 50% 650 650 505 505 563 563 -58 -58 58 58RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Lakeway Dr. Rivery Blvd. 4,785 0.91 2 2 5U 1600 1,600 50% 650 650 589 589 725 725 -136 -136 136 136RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Rivery Blvd. IH-35 SBFR 1,755 0.33 2 2 5U 1600 1,600 50% 650 650 216 216 266 266 -50 -50 50 50Woodlake Dr. Wildwood Dr. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 1,475 0.28 1 1 2U 55 140 100% 475 475 133 133 15 39 117 94 Wildwood Dr. Woodlake Dr. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 3,270 0.62 1 1 2U 160 100 100% 475 475 294 294 99 62 195 232 DB Wood Rd. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Lake Overlook Rd. 2,100 0.40 1 1 2U 425 425 100% 475 475 189 189 169 169 20 20 DB Wood Rd. SH 29 (University Ave.) 320' north of SH 29 (University Ave.) 320 0.06 1 1 2U 425 425 100% 475 475 29 29 26 26 3 3Country Rd. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 2,035' southwest of RM 2338 (William 2,035 0.39 1 1 2U 19 19 50% 475 475 92 92 4 4 88 88 Booty's Crossing Rd. 405' west of Oak Ridge Circle Oak Ridge Circle 405 0.08 1 1 2U 217 217 50% 475 475 18 18 8 8 10 10 Booty's Crossing Rd. Oak Ridge Circle 245' east of Oak Ridge Circle 245 0.05 1 1 2U 217 217 50% 475 475 11 11 5 5 6 6 Booty's Crossing Rd. 245' east of Oak Ridge Circle RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) 3,110 0.59 1 1 2U 217 217 100% 475 475 280 280 128 128 152 152 SH 29 (University Ave.) Wood Ct. DB Wood Rd. 720 0.14 2 2 5U 940 940 50% 650 650 89 89 64 64 25 25 SH 29 (University Ave.) DB Wood Rd. Transition to 4D 2,265 0.43 2 2 5U 940 940 50% 650 650 279 279 202 202 77 77 SH 29 (University Ave) Transition to 4D Wolf Ranch Pkwy. 935 0.18 2 2 4D 940 940 50% 650 650 115 115 83 83 32 32 SH 29 (University Ave.) Wolf Ranch Pkwy. IH-35 SBFR 2,395 0.45 2 2 4D 940 940 50% 650 650 295 295 213 213 82 82 Wolf Ranch Pkwy. SH 29 (University Ave.) Memorial Drive 705 0.13 1 1 5U 275 300 100% 650 650 87 87 37 40 50 47 Wolf Ranch Pkwy. 3,370' southwest of Rivery Blvd. Rivery Blvd. 3,370 0.64 1 1 3U 275 300 100% 550 550 351 351 176 191 176 160 Rivery Blvd. RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Wolf Ranch Pkwy. 2,350 0.45 2 2 4D 200 245 100% 650 650 579 579 89 109 490 470 Rivery Blvd. Wolf Ranch Pkwy. IH-35 SBFR 1,955 0.37 2 2 4D 250 240 100% 650 650 481 481 93 89 389 392 SUBTOTAL 56,830 10.76 6,326


12/10/2009

PM VEH-MI VEH-MI VEH-MI EXISTINGEXCESS

10,688 1,963 1,836

VEH-MIVEH-MI

EXIST PEAK CAPACITYLANES PK-HRPK-HR

DEFICIENCIESDEMAND CAPACITYHOUR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HR

SUPPLY

VOL PER LN TOTAL TOTAL


Service Area C% IN


NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBRM 2338 (Williams Dr.) IH-35 SBFR IH-35 NBFR 505 0.10 2 2 5U 1200 1,200 100% 650 650 124 124 115 115 10 10 RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) IH-35 NBFR Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 290 0.05 2 2 5U 1200 1,200 100% 650 650 71 71 66 66 5 5 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) West 2nd St. RM 2238 (Williams Dr.) 2,650 0.50 2 2 5U 1250 1,250 100% 650 650 652 652 627 627 25 25 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) RM 2338 (Williams Dr.) Proposed Northwest Overpass 2,675 0.51 2 2 5U 435 435 100% 650 650 659 659 220 220 438 438 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) Proposed Northwest Overpass FM 971 175 0.03 2 2 5U 435 435 100% 650 650 43 43 14 14 29 29 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) FM 971 Old Airport Rd. 1,910 0.36 2 2 5U 425 425 100% 650 650 470 470 154 154 317 317 Austin Ave (Bus 35) Old Airport Rd. CR 151 2,770 0.52 2 2 5U 425 425 100% 650 650 682 682 223 223 459 459 Austin Ave (Bus 35) CR 151 NE Inner Loop 2,555 0.48 2 2 5U 425 425 100% 650 650 629 629 206 206 423 423 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) NE Inner Loop IH-35 NBFR 1,485 0.28 2 2 5U 425 425 100% 650 650 366 366 120 120 246 246 Old Airport Rd. Austin Ave. (Bus 35) Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 3,255 0.62 1 1 2U 275 275 100% 475 475 293 293 170 170 123 123 CR 151 (Old Airport Rd.) Austin Ave. (Bus 35) Inner Loop 2,925 0.55 1 1 2U 275 275 100% 475 475 263 263 152 152 111 111 CR 151 (Old Airport Rd.) Inner Loop Crystal Knoll Blvd. 1,410 0.27 1 1 2U 275 275 50% 475 475 63 63 37 37 27 27 CR 152 FM 971 Lonnie Thomas Dr. 1,200 0.23 1 1 2U 61 61 100% 475 475 108 108 14 14 94 94 CR 152 Lonnie Thomas Dr. CR 151 1,290 0.24 1 1 2U 61 61 50% 475 475 58 58 7 7 51 51 CR 152 CR 151 Crystal Knoll Blvd. 1,225 0.23 1 1 2U 61 61 50% 475 475 55 55 7 7 48 48 CR 152 Crystal Knoll Blvd. SH 130 SBFR 840 0.16 1 1 2U 61 61 100% 475 475 76 76 10 10 66 66 CR 152 SH 130 SBFR SH 130 NBFR 490 0.09 1 1 2U 61 61 100% 475 475 44 44 6 6 38 38 CR 152 SH 130 NBFR 1420' east of SH 130 NBFR 1,420 0.27 1 1 2U 25 25 100% 475 475 128 128 7 7 121 121 CR 152 1420' east of SH130 NBFR 1510' east of Sh 130 NBFR 90 0.02 1 1 2U 25 25 50% 475 475 4 4 0 0 4 4 CR 152 1160' east of SH 130 NBFR 1690' east of SH 130 NBFR 530 0.10 1 1 2U 25 25 100% 475 475 48 48 3 3 45 45 FM 971 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) Proposed CR 188 3,085 0.58 1 1 2U 340 340 100% 475 475 278 278 199 199 79 79 FM 971 Proposed CR 188 Inner Loop 4,270 0.81 1 1 2U 340 340 100% 475 475 384 384 275 275 109 109 FM 971 Inner Loop CR 152 905 0.17 1 1 2U 340 340 100% 475 475 81 81 58 58 23 23 FM 971 CR 152 SH 130 SBFR 1,525 0.29 1 1 2U 255 255 100% 475 475 137 137 74 74 64 64 FM 971 SH 130 SBFR SH 130 NBFR 500 0.09 2 2 4U 255 255 100% 550 550 104 104 24 24 80 80 FM 971 SH 130 NBFR City Limit 1,390 0.26 1 1 2U 255 255 100% 475 475 125 125 67 67 58 58 Smith Creek Rd. Maple St. SH 29 (University Ave) 7,190 1.36 1 1 2U 218 218 100% 475 475 647 647 297 297 350 350 Maple St. 7th St. SH 29 (University Ave) 2,070 0.39 1 1 2U 209 209 50% 475 475 93 93 41 41 52 52 SH 29 (University Ave.) 305' west of Maple St. Maple St. 305 0.06 2 2 4U 705 705 50% 550 550 32 32 20 20 11 11SH 29 (University Ave.) Maple St. Hutto Rd. 1,755 0.33 2 2 4U 705 705 50% 550 550 183 183 117 117 66 66 SH 29 (University Ave.) Hutto Rd. Haven Ln. 715 0.14 2 2 4U 705 705 50% 550 550 74 74 48 48 27 27 SH 29 (University Ave.) Haven Ln. Southwestern Blvd. 745 0.14 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 34 34 43 43 -10 -10 10 10SH 29 (University Ave.) Southwestern Blvd. Summercrest Blvd. 1,925 0.36 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 87 87 112 112 -26 -26 26 26SH 29 (University Ave.) Summercrest Blvd. Smith Creek Rd. 610 0.12 1 1 3U 615 615 50% 550 550 32 32 36 36 -4 -4 4 4SH 29 (University Ave.) Smith Creek Rd. Inner Loop 2,400 0.45 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 108 108 140 140 -32 -32 32 32SH 29 (University Ave.) Inner Loop Reinhardt Blvd. 990 0.19 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 45 45 58 58 -13 -13 13 13SH 29 (University Ave.) Reinhardt Blvd. Raindance Dr. 1,640 0.31 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 74 74 96 96 -22 -22 22 22SH 29 (University Ave.) Raindance Dr. SH 130 SBFR 1,225 0.23 1 1 3U 615 615 50% 550 550 64 64 71 71 -8 -8 8 8SH 29 (University Ave.) SH 130 SBFR SH 130 NBFR 535 0.10 3 3 6U 615 615 50% 700 700 106 106 31 31 75 75 SH 29 (University Ave.) SH 130 NBFR Berry Ln. 390 0.07 2 2 4U 615 615 50% 550 550 41 41 23 23 18 18 Lakeway Dr. IH-35 SBFR IH-35 NBFR 845 0.16 1 1 2U 170 150 100% 475 475 76 76 27 24 49 52 Inner Loop IH-35 NBFR CR 151 2,350 0.45 1 1 2U 170 150 100% 475 475 211 211 76 67 136 145 Inner Loop CR 151 FM 971 3,300 0.63 1 1 2U 170 150 100% 475 475 297 297 106 94 191 203 Inner Loop FM 971 Katy Crossing 490 0.09 1 1 3U 210 190 100% 550 550 51 51 19 18 32 33 Inner Loop Katy Crossing SH 29 (University Ave) 13,681 2.59 1 1 2U 210 190 100% 475 475 1,231 1,231 544 492 687 738 SUBTOTAL 84,526 16.01


12/10/2009



EXIST PEAK CAPACITYLANES PK-HRPK-HRHOUR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HR

SUPPLY DEFICIENCIESDEMAND CAPACITY

9,438 2279,42218,860

VEH-MIVEH-MI


Service Area D% IN


NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBSH 29 (University Ave) City Limit (2,530' east of Gabriel Fore945' west of Wood Ranch Rd. 3,470 0.66 2 2 5U 810 810 50% 650 650 427 427 266 266 161 161 SH 29 (University Ave) Wood Ct. DB Wood Rd. 720 0.14 2 2 5U 940 940 50% 650 650 89 89 64 64 25 25 SH 29 (University Ave) DB Wood Rd. Transition to 4D 2,265 0.43 2 2 5U 940 940 50% 650 650 279 279 202 202 77 77 SH 29 (University Ave) Transition to 4D Wolf Ranch Pkwy. 935 0.18 2 2 4D 940 940 50% 650 650 115 115 83 83 32 32 SH 29 (University Ave) Wolf Ranch Pkwy. IH-35 SBFR 2,375 0.45 2 2 4D 940 940 50% 650 650 292 292 211 211 81 81 RM 2243 Water Oak Pkwy City Limit (2,685' west of Weir Ranch 16,335 3.09 1 1 2U 220 220 50% 475 475 735 735 340 340 394 394 RM 2243 City Limit (2,685' west of Weir RanchWeir Ranch Rd. 2,685 0.51 1 1 2U 220 220 100% 475 475 242 242 112 112 130 130 RM 2243 Weir Ranch Rd. River Ridge Ln. 3,115 0.59 1 1 3U 425 425 100% 550 550 324 324 251 251 74 74 RM 2243 River Ridge Ln. Norwood St. W 1,750 0.33 1 1 3U 425 425 50% 550 550 91 91 70 70 21 21 RM 2243 Norwood St. W IH-35 SBFR 4,250 0.80 2 2 5U 580 580 100% 650 650 1,046 1,046 467 467 580 580 RM 2243 IH-35 SBFR Scenic Dr. 1,200 0.23 2 2 5U 685 685 50% 650 650 148 148 78 78 70 70 Scenic Dr. RM 2243 W. 17th St. 3,085 0.58 2 2 4D 300 300 50% 650 650 380 380 88 88 292 292 Scenic Dr. W. 17th St. SH 29 (University Ave) 1,675 0.32 1 1 2U 300 300 50% 475 475 75 75 48 48 28 28 Wolf Ranch Pkwy SH 29 (University Ave) 240' south of SH 29 (University Ave) 240 0.05 1 1 2U 50 50 100% 475 475 22 22 2 2 19 19 Wolf Ranch Pkwy 240' south of SH 29 (University Ave) City Limit (390' south of SH 29) 150 0.03 2 2 4D 50 50 50% 650 650 18 18 1 1 18 18 DB Wood Rd. SH 29 (University Ave) City Limit (1,050' south of SH 29) 1,050 0.20 2 2 4D 20 20 100% 650 650 259 259 4 4 255 255 SUBTOTAL 45,300 8.58 0


12/10/2009


4,5104,5749,084

VEH-MIVEH-MI

EXIST PEAK CAPACITYLANES PK-HRPK-HR

DEFICIENCIESDEMAND CAPACITYHOUR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HR

SUPPLY



Service Area E% IN


NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBRM 2243 (Leander Rd.) IH-35 SBFR IH-35 NBFR 555 0.11 2 2 5U 685 685 50% 650 650 68 68 36 36 32 32 RM 2243 (Leander Rd.) I-35 NBFR Scenic Dr. 475 0.09 2 2 5U 685 685 50% 650 650 58 58 31 31 28 28 RM 2243 (Leander Rd.) Scenic Dr. Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 2,165 0.41 2 2 5U 685 685 100% 650 650 533 533 281 281 252 252 FM 1460 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) Quail Valley Dr. 2,820 0.53 2 2 5U 380 380 100% 650 650 694 694 203 203 491 491 FM 1460 Quail Valley Dr. 2455' north of Inner Loop 2,015 0.38 1 1 2U 380 380 50% 475 475 91 91 73 73 18 18 FM 1460 865' north of Inner Loop 540' north of Inner Loop 865 0.16 1 1 2U 380 380 50% 475 475 39 39 31 31 8 8 FM 1460 540' north of Inner Loop Inner Loop 540 0.10 1 1 2U 380 380 100% 475 475 49 49 39 39 10 10FM 1460 Inner Loop 1585' south of Inner Loop 1,585 0.30 1 1 2U-R 150 150 50% 150 150 23 23 23 23 0 0 FM 1460 420' north of La Conterra Blvd. 610' south of La Conterra Blvd. 1,030 0.20 1 1 2U-R 150 150 50% 150 150 15 15 15 15 0 0 FM 1460 1600' north of CR 111 CR 111 1,600 0.30 1 1 2U-R 150 150 50% 150 150 23 23 23 23 0 0 FM 1460 CR 111 1655' south of CR 111 1,655 0.31 1 1 2U-R 150 150 50% 150 150 24 24 24 24 0 0 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) IH-35 SBFR Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 1,070 0.20 1 1 2U 310 310 100% 475 475 96 96 63 63 33 33 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) IH-35 NBFR FM 2243 (Leander Rd.) 5,630 1.07 2 2 4U 310 310 100% 550 550 1,173 1,173 331 331 842 842 Austin Ave. (Bus 35) FM 2243 (Leander Rd.) W. 17th St. 2,465 0.47 2 2 4U 310 310 100% 550 550 514 514 145 145 369 369 Blue Springs Blvd. IH-35 NBFR CR 116 510 0.10 2 2 4D 31 19 100% 650 650 126 126 3 2 123 124 CR 116 Blue Springs Blvd. 1950' south of Blue Springs Blvd. 1,950 0.37 1 1 2U-R 33 36 50% 150 150 28 28 6 7 22 21 CR 116 280' north of Commerce Blvd. 930' south of Commerce Blvd 1,210 0.23 1 1 2U-R 33 36 50% 150 150 17 17 4 4 13 13 CR 116 510' north of CR 111 CR 111 510 0.10 1 1 2U-R 33 36 100% 150 150 14 14 3 3 11 11 Inner Loop Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 560' east of Austin Ave. (Bus 35) 560 0.11 1 1 2U 320 207 100% 475 475 50 50 34 22 16 28 Inner Loop 560' east of Austin Ave. (Bus 35) FM 1460 5,395 1.02 1 1 2U 320 207 50% 475 475 243 243 163 106 79 137 Inner Loop FM 1460 Maple St. 2,820 0.53 1 1 2U 320 207 100% 475 475 254 254 171 111 83 143 La Conterra Blvd. FM 1460 Natura Dr. 1,655 0.31 1 1 2U-N 5 4 100% 250 250 78 78 2 1 77 77 Westinghouse Rd. IH-35 SBFR IH-35 NBFR 845 0.16 1 1 2U-R 197 197 50% 150 150 12 12 16 16 -4 -4 4 4Westinghouse Rd. IH-35 NBFR 1290' east of IH-35 NBFR 1,290 0.24 1 1 2U-R 197 197 100% 150 150 37 37 48 48 -11 -11 11 11Westinghouse Rd. 1290' east of IH-35 NBFR CR 116 2,745 0.52 1 1 2U-R 197 197 50% 150 150 39 39 51 51 -12 -12 12 12Westinghouse Rd. CR 116 3010' east of CR 116 3,010 0.57 1 1 2U-R 57 57 50% 150 150 43 43 16 16 27 27 Westinghouse Rd. FM 1460 Maple St. 3,825 0.72 1 1 2U-R 40 40 100% 150 150 109 109 29 29 80 80 Scenic Dr. RM 2243 (Leander Rd.) W. 17th St. 3,085 0.58 2 2 4D 300 300 50% 650 650 380 380 88 88 292 292 W/E 17th St. Scenic Dr. S. Church St. 3,375 0.64 1 1 2U 70 75 50% 475 475 152 152 22 24 129 128 S. Church St. E. 17th St. E. 21st St. 1,865 0.35 1 1 2U-N 80 80 50% 250 250 44 44 14 14 30 30 E. 21st St. Austin Ave. (Bus 35) S. Church St. 2,020 0.38 1 1 2U 75 75 100% 475 475 182 182 29 29 153 153 S. Main St. E. 17th St. E. 21st St. 1,795 0.34 1 1 2U 1250 1,250 100% 475 475 161 161 425 425 -263 -263 263 263Maple St. Inner Loop 875' south of W. Ridge Line Blvd. 4,105 0.78 1 1 2U 122 122 50% 475 475 185 185 47 47 137 137 SUBTOTAL 67,040 12.70

VEH-MITOTALVOL PER LN TOTAL VEH-MIPK-HR

DEMAND CAPACITY DEFICIENCIESPK-HR PK-HRLANES HOUR PK-HR PK-HR

EXIST PEAK

4,843 6,259 58211,102


12/10/2009

PM VEH-MI VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS EXISTINGCAPACITY SUPPLY


Service Area F% IN


NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBSH 29 (University Ave.) 305' east of Maple St. Hutto Rd. 2,060 0.39 2 2 4U 705 705 50% 550 550 215 215 138 138 77 77 SH 29 (University Ave.) Hutto Rd. Haven Ln. 715 0.14 2 2 4U 705 705 50% 550 550 74 74 48 48 27 27 SH 29 (University Ave.) Haven Ln. Southwestern Blvd. 745 0.14 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 34 34 43 43 -10 -10 10 10SH 29 (University Ave.) Southwestern Blvd. Summercrest Blvd. 1,925 0.36 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 87 87 112 112 -26 -26 26 26SH 29 (University Ave.) Summercrest Blvd. Smith Creek Rd. 610 0.12 1 1 3U 615 615 50% 550 550 32 32 36 36 -4 -4 4 4SH 29 (University Ave.) Smith Creek Rd. Inner Loop 2,400 0.45 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 108 108 140 140 -32 -32 32 32SH 29 (University Ave.) Inner Loop 220' east of Reinhardt Blvd. 1,210 0.23 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 54 54 70 70 -16 -16 16 16SH 29 (University Ave.) SH 130 SBFR SH 130 NBFR 535 0.10 3 3 6U 615 615 50% 700 700 106 106 31 31 75 75 SH 29 (University Ave.) SH 130 NBFR Berry Ln. 390 0.07 2 2 4U 615 615 50% 550 550 41 41 23 23 18 18 SH 29 (University Ave.) Berry Ln. CR 104 4,065 0.77 1 1 2U 615 615 50% 475 475 183 183 237 237 -54 -54 54 54Inner Loop Maple St. Southwestern Blvd. 4,010 0.76 1 1 2U 320 207 100% 475 475 361 361 243 157 118 204 Inner Loop Southwestern Blvd. 185' east of CR 110 1,660 0.31 1 1 2U 320 207 50% 475 475 75 75 50 33 24 42 Inner Loop CR 110 Belmont Dr. 3,165 0.60 1 1 2U 277 277 100% 475 475 285 285 166 166 119 119 Inner Loop Belmont Dr. SH 29 (University Ave.) 2,940 0.56 1 1 3U 277 277 100% 550 550 306 306 154 154 152 152 Westinghouse Rd. Maple St. 405' east of Maple St. 405 0.08 1 1 2U-R 40 40 100% 150 150 12 12 3 3 8 8 Westinghouse Rd. 405' east of Maple St. 2,220' east of Maple St. 1,815 0.34 1 1 2U-R 40 40 50% 150 150 26 26 7 7 19 19 Maple St. Inner Loop 875' south of W. Ridge Line Blvd. 4,105 0.78 1 1 2U 122 122 50% 475 475 185 185 47 47 137 137 Maple St. E. 19th St. Britania Blvd 2,225 0.42 1 1 2U 122 122 50% 475 475 100 100 26 26 74 74 Maple St. E. 19th St. SH 29 (University Ave.) 2,180 0.41 1 1 2U 122 122 100% 475 475 196 196 50 50 146 146 Hutto Rd. SH 29 (University Ave.) Quail Valley Dr. 2,855 0.54 1 1 2U 42 42 100% 475 475 257 257 23 23 234 234 Southwestern Blvd. Inner Loop 1,380' north of Inner Loop 1,380 0.26 1 1 2U 81 40 50% 475 475 62 62 11 5 51 57 Southwestern Blvd. 1,380' north of Inner Loop SH 29 (University Ave.) 5,080 0.96 1 1 2U 81 40 100% 475 475 457 457 78 38 379 419 CR 110 Carlson Cv. 4,140' south of Carlson Cv. 4,140 0.78 1 1 2U-R 81 40 100% 150 150 118 118 64 31 54 86 CR 110 4,140' south of Carlson Cv. 5,425' south of Carlson Cv. 1,285 0.24 1 1 2U-R 81 40 50% 150 150 18 18 10 5 8 13 CR 111 Maple St. 405' east of Maple St. 405 0.08 1 1 2U 81 40 100% 475 475 36 36 6 3 30 33 CR 111 405' east of Maple St. 2,220' east of Maple St. 1,815 0.34 1 1 2U 81 40 50% 475 475 82 82 14 7 68 75 Carlson Cv. CR 110 Future extension of Carlson Cv. 3,200 0.61 1 1 2U-R 5 5 100% 150 150 91 91 3 3 88 88 CR 102 (Lawhon Ln.) SH 130 SBFR CR 104 2,970 0.56 1 1 2U-R 5 5 100% 150 150 84 84 3 3 82 82 CR 104 CR 102 (Lawhon Ln.) SH 130 SBFR 490 0.09 1 1 2U 11 16 100% 475 475 44 44 1 1 43 43 CR 104 SH 130 SBFR SH 130 NBFR 435 0.08 2 2 4U 11 16 100% 550 550 91 91 1 1 90 89 CR 104 SH 130 NBFR City Limit 3,210 0.61 1 1 2U 35 35 100% 475 475 289 289 21 21 268 268 CR 104 City Limit Rockney Rd. 2,455 0.46 1 1 2U 35 35 50% 475 475 110 110 8 8 102 102 CR 104 Rockney Rd. SH 29 (University Ave.) 3,160 0.60 2 2 4U 35 35 50% 550 550 329 329 10 10 319 319 SUBTOTAL 59,450 11.26


12/10/2009

PM VEH-MI VEH-MI VEH-MI EXCESS EXISTINGDEFICIENCIES

LANES HOUR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HR PK-HREXIST PEAK CAPACITY SUPPLY DEMAND CAPACITY


2825,5343,5589,092

VEH-MIVEH-MI



Appendix D – Plan for Awarding the

Roadway Impact Fee Credit (as prepared by HDR, Inc.)


Calculation of a Roadway Impact Fee Credit

for Future Ad Valorem Tax Payments Made by New Development

Background Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code (§395.014(a)(7)) recognizes that new development may pay for its roadway, water, wastewater, and stormwater capital needs in more than one way. If an initial up-front impact fee is levied for new development, then in most instances, that new customer or business will also pay additionally for infrastructure over the long-term through capital costs embedded in taxes or utility rates. So to avoid overcharging the new resident or business, the calculation of the up-front impact fee must consider those future tax or rate payments in the sizing of the initial fee. Chapter 395 allows for the calculation of a specific credit amount, or alternately, simply using 50% of the eligible capital costs as a proxy for a specific credit calculation. This appendix details the specific credit calculation to be used by the City of Georgetown. In Texas, municipalities will typically fund major capital improvements through one of three debt instruments: General Obligation Bonds, Certificates of Obligation, or Revenue Bonds. Since municipal water and wastewater utilities, and sometimes stormwater utility service, are most often structured as “Enterprise Funds” that have “closed” accounting and generate self-supporting revenue, revenue bonds are typically used to funding major capital improvements. Municipal roadway or “streets” services are normally located in a city’s General Fund. Major roadway capital improvements originating in a City’s General Fund thus normally rely upon the issuance of tax-pledge supported debt instruments, such as General Obligation (GO) Bonds or Certificates of Obligation (CO). An array of future roadway improvements, to be funded with GO debt and repaid with ad valorem tax revenue, were authorized by the voters in the City of Georgetown’s 2008 bond election. The City currently has only one outstanding GO debt issue, the 2009 GO bond series, authorized by the 2008 election. Under that authorization, the City anticipates additional General Obligation Bond and some Certificate of Obligation debt funding of various roadway projects that would provide for new development. Developer cost participation (reimbursed through offsets to paying the full fee) and use of impact fee proceeds to assist in debt service payments are also contemplated, so that the full burden of these improvements will not borne by the taxes alone. The City of Georgetown has a Capital Improvements Plan that identifies the various roadway projects to be funded in the next 10 years. Chapter 395 requires that roadway impact fees only consider the inclusion of growth-related capital improvements within six miles of the new development. To accommodate that,


the City of Georgetown was divided into six planning areas or zones for purposes of the impact fee calculation. Other portions of this roadway impact fee report have identified, by planning area, current roadway and traffic conditions, the anticipated extent and location of future growth, current and future vehicle-mile roadway service demand, and the cost of roadway improvements associated with new development. This planning area information and the existing and future GO and CO debt issues are considered in the calculation of the roadway fee credit. Credit Calculation An array of various projects has been identified in the roadway impact fee CIP. It is somewhat uncertain as to when some of the roadways will be built, as there are no strict requirements that roadways be built within a time certain after annexation. So the roadway costs, attributable to new growth for each planning area, were divided evenly across the 10-year planning horizon. Next, a consideration was made as to what percent of these project costs might be ad valorem tax rate-supported. As previously mentioned, there are several means by which these projects can be built without the full costs of the project being tax-supported, including: (a) use of impact fee proceeds to “buy down” construction costs, (b) construction initially funded by the private sector with reimbursements through offsets to paying the full impact fee or use of impact fee proceeds to reimburse developers, or (c) use of impact fee proceeds to pay roadway debt service. Further, given the recent “freezing” of residential appraised values for seniors 65 yrs. and older, there will be more constrained future limits on what debt the City’s ad valorem tax rate can support. It is likely that increased upfront private sector support will be needed to get these roadways constructed. Therefore, it is assumed that about 50% of the roadway project costs related to new growth will be tax supported. The portion of roadways to be tax-supported were then adjusted to prospective bond amounts for each of the 10 years of the planning period and amortized to yield annual debt service estimates. Bond financing assumptions were coordinated with City Finance Department staff. Annual debt service payments, allocated by planning area, were then totaled across all outstanding issues outstanding in any given year. Payments made or received in the longer-term typically have a lesser present (or real) value than payments made in the near-term term. So, the annual debt service amounts, by year by planning area, are then converted into their present value using what is termed a discount rate. The present value debt service amounts are then summed over the future bond-life years to a net present value (NPV) total by planning area (see Table D-1). In essence, the NPV represents today’s worth of a multi-year stream of future debt service payments.


As shown in Table D-1, the NPV ad valorem debt service of each planning area is then divided by the total projected vehicle-miles for each planning area to arrive at a NPV debt service amount per vehicle-mile. The total vehicle-miles (for both existing and new development) is used as both existing and new development will jointly bear the burden of the repayment of the tax bonds. In any given future year, both new and existing development are both paying property taxes to support the debt associated with these roadway projects that provide for growth. In the case of Georgetown, new growth accounts for an average 58% of the traffic volume across the six roadway planning areas during the 10-year period with existing development accounting for 42%. Thus, only about 58% of every NPV debt service dollar per vehicle-mile is actually supported by new development, and the remainder of these growth-related costs is borne by existing residents and businesses. So, the calculated fee credit is reduced accordingly since new development only actually pays for a portion of the growth-related debt service costs it is incurring. As shown in Table D-1, these adjustment factors are uniquely calculated and applied for each roadway planning area. The right-hand column of Table D-1 shows the result of that adjusted amount. This is the ad valorem fee credit to be offset against the eligible roadway capital cost per vehicle mile for each planning area.

Table D-1 Summary of Calculation of Fee Credit

Planning Area

NPV Debt Service Costs Anticipated to be

Tax Rate Supported

NPV Debt Service

Cost per Vehicle-Mile

Avg. Debt Service

Payment Apportionment

Factor **

Adjusted NPV Debt Service Cost per Vehicle-Mile

- or - the Fee Credit

A $7.974 mill. $261 52.4% $137

B $0.320 mill. $18 37.9% $7

C $16.551 mill. $638 61.5% $393

D $6.924 mill. $592 59.0% $349

E $4.913 mill. $271 70.8% $192

F $16.045 mill. $1,138 72.2% $821

* Total vehicle-miles from Appendix C. ** Portion of debt service borne by new development.

2008 - 2009 Georgetown Roadway Impact Fee Study€¦ · 2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study 6...

Documents

Transcript of 2008 - 2009 Georgetown Roadway Impact Fee Study€¦ · 2008-2009 Roadway Impact Fee Study 6...