Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutG20-03 (2) , CITY OF ELGIN ORDINANCE NO. G20-03 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE FAR WEST AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTIBUTIONS FOR ROADWAYS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN ON THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2003 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the City Council of the City of Elgin, Kane and Cook Counties, Illinois, on this 11th day of April 2003. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KANE ) CERTIFICATE I, Dolonna Mecum, certify that I am the duly appointed and acting municipal clerk of the City of Elgin, Cook and Kane Counties, Illinois. I further certify that on April 9, 2003, the Corporate Authorities of such municipality passed and approved Ordinance No. G20-03, which provided by its terms that it should be published in pamphlet form. The pamphlet form of Ordinance No. G20-03, including the Ordinance and a cover sheet thereof, was prepared, and a copy of such Ordinance was posted in the municipal building commencing on April 11, 2003, and continuing for at least ten days thereafter. Copies of such Ordinance were also available for public inspection upon request in the office of the municipal clerk. DATED at Elgin, Illinois, on April 11, 2003. Municipal Clerk (SEAL) Ordinance No. G20-03 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE FAR WEST AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ROADWAYS WHEREAS, the City of Elgin has heretofore adopted a Comprehensive Plan which includes therein an area identified as the Far West Area; and WHEREAS, the annexation of additional territory in the Far West Area to the City of Elgin and new development thereof causes and imposes an increased and excessive demands upon public facilities and services that are specifically and uniquely attributable to those developments; and WHEREAS, such effected public facilities and services include roadway improvements; and WHEREAS, planning projections indicate that such development shall continue and shall place ever increasing demands on the City of Elgin relating to roadway improvements; and eft WHEREAS, to the extent that new development places demands upon public roadway improvements which are specifically and uniquely attributable to that development, those demands should be satisfied by requiring that developments creating the demands pay the cost of meeting the demands; and WHEREAS, the City Council , after conducting a study and review and careful consideration, hereby finds and declares that roadway improvement contributions required of territory in the Far West Area annexed to the city and new development thereon to finance specified roadway improvements, the demand for which is created by such development, is in the best interests of the general welfare of the city and its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on such development; and WHEREAS, Section 17 . 01 . 060 of the Elgin Municipal Code, 1976, as amended, provides in part that the City Council may, at its sole discretion, require additional contributions and dedications as it may deem necessary and desirable as a condition to the annexation of any land to the city; and WHEREAS, the City of Elgin is a home rule unit which may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a policy providing for development contributions for roadway improvements pertains to the government and affairs of the City of Elgin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS : Section 1 . That this ordinance shall constitute the policy of the City of Elgin for development contributions for roadway improvements for the area consisting of the portion of the Far West Area identified and depicted on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Portion of the Far West Area" ) . The provisions of this ordinance shall be applied equally to all properties within the Subject Portion of the Far West Area annexed into the City of Elgin pursuant to an annexation agreement . Section 2 . That in order to provide a consistent application of requirements for contributions by landowners for necessary rights-of-way and improvements to city or county roadway systems resulting from development activity, the City Council of the City of Elgin hereby establishes policies with respect to required roadway improvement contributions and right- of-way dedications related to the annexation and development of property in the Subject Portion of the Far West Area. These policies shall apply to all roadway improvements planned, proposed or existing. These policies are intended to supplement development regulations contained in the Elgin Municipal Code in general and in the subdivision ordinance in particular. The policy elements are as follows : 1 . The owner of a property in the Subject Portion of the Far West Area shall pay a cash contribution to the city for area roadway improvements equal to the property' s proportionate share of area roadway improvement costs . 2 . The cash contribution for roadway improvements for property in the Subject Portion of the Far West Area to be developed as residential shall be $1, 860 per dwelling unit . 3 . The cash contribution for roadway improvements for a property in the Subject Portion of the Far West Area to be developed other than eft residential shall be in the amount of $2 , 200 per 1 , 000 square feet of non-residential building development, or fraction thereof, not to exceed $50 , 000 per non- residential building. 4 . The dollar amounts for contributions for roadway improvements shall be adjusted upward at an annual rate of three percent (3%) effective January 1 , 2004 , and annually thereafter. The contribution for roadway improvements shall be payable prior to the issuance of a building permit . No building permit shall be issued for a development subject to the requirements of this ordinance unless the applicant therefor has paid the contribution for roadway improvements imposed by and calculated pursuant to this ordinance . 5 . The costs for on-site, adjacent and other roadway improvements that are immediately necessary for the roadway network to accommodate the increase in traffic created by a proposed development are to be born by the owner or the developer of the property proposed to be developed and are in addition to the contributions for the roadway improvements provided for by this ordinance . 6 . Where a planned City of Elgin or county public right-of-way is located on the subject property, the owner shall also be responsible for the dedication of all right-of-way and easements required for the construction or expansion of the planned roadway. 7 . In the event the owner or a developer of a property in the subject portion of the Far West Area provides and pays for the construction of one or more of the roadway improvements specified in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof the City Council in its discretion may consider providing to such property owner or developer a credit for such costs towards the contributions for roadway improvements provided for in this ordinance. The City Council in its discretion may also consider the adoption of recapture ordinances on behalf of such a property owner or developer. Any such credits or recapture ordinances are to be specified in the annexation agreement for such a property. 8 . The contributions for roadway improvements established pursuant to this ordinance shall be t/'' calculated by the City Planning Department . Contributions for roadway improvements calculated and due pursuant to this ordinance shall be collected by the City Department of Code Administration. Upon receipt of contributions for roadway improvements, the City Finance Department shall be responsible for placement of such funds into separate accounts . Contributions for roadway improvements provided for in this ordinance shall be restricted for use solely and exclusively for financing directly, or as a pledge against bonds, revenue certificates, and other obligations of an indebtedness for the cost of roadway improvements . Section 3 . That Ordinance No. G4-02 be and is hereby repealed. Section 4 . That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and are hereby repealed. Section 5 . That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication in the manner required by law. i -d Schock, Mayor Presented: April 9, 2003 Passed: April 9, 2003 Vote : Yeas : 6 Nays : 0 Recorded: April 10 , 2003 Published: April 11 , 2003 Attest : nJ1/�L.a�� Ag Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk tow •:•,•-•. ..: ...., 3 L , 0 9. Far 10 . • . - Exhibit 1 : Areas Subject etontthCIontar ) Mason Rd i ilriea Roadway .:•••. M n 13(Pcc . , 'Oer ii,o, _ 73 0, 1. 2 - - -- - ( - - _ .--.-........................."'A`i' , ill '''III)II .I.....441 ,-, . . . . N LT; 0 )._ .--- co co Os,, .... '74'j'''° -)P • :'‘'.:1-"' , - 1111111 :, ct • Roadway improvement Contribution - i bp Area IV 4" 414 4 , :1 aa'1 1t41...1 - a 4 a. °Alai Bowes Rd "11/40/'9 CFAqki t -‘111 . '1 GbCp --C''',•....,.- III& ------■44, . . ,. (--.., - I .....,. ''''''''.;---.-.,,,&„,----.11g325.a7-•=i---7-111;1. — 'ri ''',..'•,;I: • I 111 .11 all Z 111.... , , Exhibit 2 ELGIN FAR WEST PLANNING AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN "`' Analysis of Adjusted Developers' Share of Improvement Costs 1 Developers' Share 1 Developers' Share, Intersection Total Cost j Per Traffic Study I Adjusted 1 Reason for Adjustment Coombs& Russell Ext. $450,0001 $329,6001 $329,600 Coombs&Highland $450,000 1 $250,0001 $250,0001 Corron& Bowes $390,00011 $205,9001 $205,9001 Corron& McDonald $450,0001 $232,300 $0 Intersection not in FWA Crawford&Bowes $0 $01 $0' E/W 3 & Randall $280,00011 $124,5001 $124,500 Hopps&Randall Backage $160,000 $104,50011 $104,5001 Hopps&Stevens $0 $01 $01 McDonald&Stevens $200,000, $49,8001 $0i Intersection not in FWA Muirhead&Russell $0 i $0 $0I Nesler Ext. &Highland $160,000! $107,4001 $107,4001 Nester Ext.&20 Backage $160,000 $160,0001 $160,0001 Nesler&East/West 1 $450,0001 $342,400' $342,4001 I Nester& Bowes $640,0001 $344,800 $344,800 Nester&Water $01 $01 $01 Nolan&Bowes $100,000 $54,400 $54,4001 North/South& East/West 1 $160,000' $160,0001 $160,000 North/South&East/West 2 $330,000 $330,0001 $330,000 North/South&Bowes $390,000 $275,8001 $275,8001 r&Switzer $250,000' $89,1001 $01 Intersection not in FWA .,, all Backage& Bowes $160,000, $116,3001 $116,300 Randall&Bowes $210,000 $115,2001 $115,200 Randall&College Green $30,0001 $12,5001 $12,5001 Randall& Highland $100,00011 $40,900 $40,900 Randall&Hopps $210,0001 $101,9001 $101,9001 Randall&McDonald $0 $01 $0 Intersection not in FWA Randall&South $100,000 $44,500 j $44,500 Randall&Weld $70,0001 $29,0001 $29,000 Randall/US 20/Foothill $270,0001 $96,700 i $96,700 Randall/US 20/Weld $170,0001 $68,5001 $68,500 Russell Ext.& US 20 $450,000 $233,8001 $233,800 Russell&Corron Ext $330,000 $189,300; $189,300 Russell& East/West 1 $160,000 $103,4001 $103,400 Russell& Plank $420,0001 $189,400 $189,400 US 20,&Switzer $390,000 $153,8001 $01 Intersection not in FWA Weld&US 20 $350,000 $01 $01 Nesler&US 20 $560,000 $0 j $01 Coombs&US 20 $560,000 $01, $0i Intersection Subtotals $9,560,000; $4,655,700 $4,130,700 Page 1 Exhibit 2 ELGIN FAR WEST PLANNING AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Analysis of Adjusted Developers' Share of Improvement Costs 1 Developers' Share Developers' Share, Segment Total Cost 1 Per Traffic Study Adjusted Reason for Adjustment Bowes, Corron to Nesler $1,780,0001 $946,800 $946,800 Bowes, Crawford to Corron $2,400,0001 $474,4001 $474,400:; Bowes, East of Randall $280,000' $179,2001 $179,200 Bowes, Nesler to Nolan $920,000 $510,100 $510,100 Bowes, Nolan to N/S Road $1,620,0001 $914,300, $914,300 Bowes, N/S to Randall Backage $2,230,0001 $1,480,0001 $1,480,000 Bowes, Randall Back.to Randall $360,000! $288,0001 $288,000 Corron Ext, Bowes to Russell $15,560,000 $10,137,6001 $5,068,800 Half of Corron Road costs Corron Ext, Plank to US 20 $1,820,0001 $1,021,8001 $510,900 will be apportioned to Corron Ext, Russell to Plank $3,320,0001 $1,411,0001 $705,500, properties west of Corron Corron Ext, US 20 to Highland $2,720,0001 $1,212,50011 $606,250 Road East/West 1, Nesler to N/S Road $1,530,000 $1,530,000'; $0 Internal to Development East/West 1, Russell to Nesler $2,190,0001 $1,709,100 $0 Internal to Development East/West 3, Bowes to Randall Backage $6,340,0001 $6,340,000! $0 Internal to Development Highland, East of Randall $340,000, $53,1001 $53,100 Highland,West of Randall $720,0001 $468,1001 $468,100 Hopps, East of Randall $1,050,0001 $619,600, $619,600 Hopps,West of Randall $2,350,000 $1,995,7001 $1,995,700 McDonald, East of Randall $680,000 $9,700 $0 Segment not in FWA McDonald,West of Randall $370,000' $31,0001 1 $0 Segment not in FWA Nesler, US 20 Back.to Highland $3,420,000' $3,420,000 $3,420,000 Nesler, US 20 to US 20 Backage $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 1\ ``,/South, Bowes to South $3,950,000 $3,729,000 i $0 Internal to Development rt /South, E/W 1 to US 20 $1,900,0001 $1,828,1001 $0 Internal to Development North/South,South to E/W 1 $1,250,0001 $1,250,0001 $0 Internal to Development Randall Backage $2,240,0001 $2,240,000 $0 Internal to Development Randall, Bowes to College Green $850,000 $367,7001! $367,700 Randall, College Green to South $3,000,000' $1,306,500' $1,306,500 Randall, East/West 3 to Bowes $560,0001 $246,3001 $246,300 Randall, Hopps to East/West 3 $720,0001 $250,000 $250,000' Randall, South to Weld $2,120,0001 $1,006,2001 $1,006,200 Randall, US 20/Weld to US 20/Foothill $3,730,0001 $1,337,7001 $1,337,700 Randall, US 20/Foothill to Highland $3,250,000', $1,128,800 $1,128,800 Randall,Weld to US 20/Weld $310,000 $132,100 $132,100. Russell Ext., Plank to US 20 $330,0001 $330,000 $330,000 Russell Ext., US 20 to Coombs $870,000! $870,000, $870,000 South Street, E of Randall $90,0001 $5,000 $0 Internal to Development South St. Ext., N/S to South $3,930,000] $2,123,300 $0 Internal to Development South St. Ext.,Water to N/S $3,510,000' $3,036,700 $0 Internal to Development US 20,to Russell Ext. $830,000 $275,400 $137,700 50% Interagency Discount US 20, Coombs to 6 lane section $1,470,000'', $613,600 $306,800 50% Interagency Discount US 20, Nesler to Weld $1,740,0001 $1,071,600 $535,800 50% Interagency Discount US 20, Russell Ext to Coombs $380,000, $128,2001 $64,100 50% Interagency Discount US 20,Weld to Randall $2,120,000' $1,399,600 $699,800 50% Interagency Discount US 20 Backage,Coombs to Nesler $3,280,0001 $3,280,000! $0 Internal to Development Segment Subtotals $95,060,000! $63,337,800! $27,590,250 Intersection Subtotals (From Prey. Page) $9,560,000 $4,655,700 $4,130,700 Totals*. $104,620,0001 $67,993,50011 $31,720,950 ot Page 2 OF El C' Citof E I I n Agenda Item No. flE;? Y 9 9n Alik ..ORATEDFEB E r ` .:" r r February 21, 2003 G �•. 1 N raiEE;C: TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ECONOMIC GROWTH FROM: Olufemi Folarin, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Impact Fees and Development Contributions for Utilities and Roadway Improvements PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members of the City Council with information to consider adoption of impact fees and development contributions for utilities and roadway improvements . 111 BACKGROUND In mid-2001, staff prepared a report detailing proposed amendments to various existing impact fees and contributions as well as the creation of new, additional fees and contributions. Proposed amendments included those related to school buildings and sites, park sites, sewer and water lines, and library buildings. New fees included those related to park improvements, public safety buildings, and roads . At that time, an estimate was given for what would be the cumulative dollar amount to be assessed on new construction if all of these fees and contributions were to be adopted. These amounts would vary depending on the parts of town in which the construction was to occur. For example, it was projected that a four bedroom/single family/detached home in the growing Far West Area would be assessed a cumulative impact fee of $13 , 753, a 39% increase over the $9, 889 in fees existing prior to 2001 . The City shared this amount with the development community at that time and received no objection. The adoption and implementation of these fees and contributions • have been phased in since that time . To date, the City Council adopted the fees and contributions related to school and park • Impact Fees and Development Contributions February 21, 2003 Page 2 sites, school and park capital improvements, library capital improvements, and public safety buildings . This memo and its attachments outline the final drafts of the remaining fees and contributions to be adopted. These include a water connection fee, sanitary sewer recapture fee, and roadway improvement contributions . Most of these fees and contributions have gone through various refinements during the nearly two-year time period since they were originally proposed. These include increases in the costs of construction since the original proposals, strengthened methodologies, and additional input from other taxing districts, the development industry, and area homebuilders . As a result of these refinements, the four bedroom/single family/detached home in the Far West Area would now be assessed a cumulative fee amount of $14, 911, a 51% increase over the $9, 889 in fees existing prior to 2001 . • The attached charts illustrate these final proposed fees and contributions. Also illustrated is how these proposed fees and contributions compare to those assessed by our neighboring communities . If adopted, the fees and contributions for residential development in portions of Elgin' s Far West Area will be among the highest of the 13 municipalities in our immediate area (the fees would be less for other parts of town) . Fees for commercial and industrial development in the Far West Area will be high, but comparable to the fees assessed by other area communities. However, for this type of development, it is necessary to balance the need to recover costs while at the same time remaining competitive. To accomplish this, these proposed fees and contributions include certain exceptions and reductions for non-residential development depending on its location within the Far West Area. These locations include the Randall Road/I-90 corridor and the frontage parcels along Randall Road near Bowes and Hopps Roads . COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED Other taxing districts, development companies, homebuilders, and the Public Works and Water Departments have been consulted • during the preparation of these remaining fees. As it relates • Impact Fees and Development Contributions February 21, 2003 Page 3 to the Roadway Contribution, the Kane County Division of Transportation concurs with the proposed fee. Town and Country and Centex Homes likewise concur. To date, there is no opposition to this fee from the other Far West homebuilders . FINANCIAL IMPACT /)-7// ( 7,1_0 Revenues from these three remaining fees and contributions, along with revenues from those fees and contributions already adopted, will represent a 50% to 60% increase over the revenues received prior to 2001 . However, even with these increases, the total impact fee revenues to be received will still be below the total costs for those capital improvements needed for new development . For example, under the proposed Water System Capital Connection Fee, a combination of either single family units (upward of 53, 000 units) and commercial/industrial buildings (30 million square feet) will have to be built in order for the City to recover its IIIcapital investment . The planning area for the Water System Connection fee is defined as west to Route 47 . In the case of the Sanitary Sewer System Recapture Fee, there are two service areas (North-Northwest and West-Southwest) with different boundaries. The net developable acreage of the BRIS sub-area of the West-Southwest recapture area totals 6, 369 acres . Based on sewer construction costs totaling $24 million and the proposed recapture fee of $1, 089 per dwelling unit, a total of approximately 22, 000 units or a commensurate amount of non- residential property will need to be built to recover the City' s monetary investment . Finally, the Roadway Improvement Contribution area totals 5, 200 acres, some of which may develop either commercial or residential . Based on a fee of $1, 860 per dwelling unit and $20 .492 million of construction costs, 11, 000 dwelling units will have to be built for the City' s capital contribution to be recovered. An example of the various impact fees illustrating their proportionate cost is shown in an attached chart . Also to be considered is the fact that the existing taxpayer shoulders the burden of financing the upfront costs of these 411 capital improvements . For example, assume the City plans on • Impact Fees and Development Contributions February 21, 2003 Page 4 building a water tower to serve the needs of new development . The City bonds for this improvement and pays the annual debt using proceeds from the existing ratepayers . Thereafter, the existing ratepayer' s share of the annual debt is adjusted downward. The amount of the adjustment is dependent on the amount of revenue received from 1) the impact fees assessed on the area' s new development and 2) the revenues received from the new ratepayers added to the system. olikrGAL IMPACT The Legal Department has reviewed the proposed fees and contributions . ALTERNATIVES 1 . Prepare ordinances to adopt the three remaining fees and contributions as drafted (water capital connection fee, the • sanitary sewer recapture fee, and the roadway improvement contribution) . 2 . Postpone action on these fees and direct staff to prepare alternative versions for future consideration. 3 . Do not adopt the three new fees and contributions at this time . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the fees and contributions as identified in Alternative One above . Respectfully submitted, Olu emi ^.lari ' • Interi Sty Ma q ager MTB/sr • Attachments • • • Summary of Impact Fees for Development in the Far West* 10,000sq.ft. 100,000sq.ft. New/Revised Fees to be Adopted 4 Bedroom Home Commercial Industrial Water Capital Connection Fee $1,300 $5,161 $5,161 Sewer Recapture Fee $1,089 $4,000 $2,500 Roadway Contribution $1.860** $22.000** $50,000** Subtotal $4,249 $31,160 $57,660 New/Revised Fees Previously Adopted School Land, School Capital, Park Land, Park Capital, Library Capital, Public Safety Building $10.622 $1.590 $1.590 Grand Total $14,911 $32,750 $59,250 *These examples are for the south and western portions of the Far West Planning Area where the need for capital improvements are the greatest. Cumulative fees for construction in other parts of Elgin are less than those noted here. **To be equally shared with the Kane County Department of Transportation upon approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement. Note that certain acreage along Randall Road, if developed commercially, would not be assessed this fee. • Regional Comparison of Cumulative Impact Fees' 4 Bedroom Single 10,000sq.ft. 100,000sq.ft. Family Residence Commercial Building Industrial Building Algonquin $15,186 No Data No Data Bartlett $6,821 $5,000 $50,000 Batavia $9,642 No Data No Data Carpentersville $6,858 No Data No Data Crystal Lake $6,748 No Data No Data Dundee(East) $6,837 No Data No Data Dundee(West) $8,602 No Data No Data • Elgin-Existing(Far West) $9,889 $3,884 $38,840 Elgin-Proposed (Far West) $14,911 $32,7502 $59,2502 Elgin-Proposed (Central, $7,836 $1,300(est.) $13,000(est.) (1-90 Corridor, East Side) Geneva $9,785 $11,360 $24,430 Hoffman Estates $1,792 $24,148 $69,602 Huntley $4,899 No Data No Data St. Charles $6,524 No Data No Data Schaumburg $750 $11,700 $102,750 South Elgin $7,446 No Data No Data • Source: "Development Impact Fees and Contributions-Proposed Revisions,"May,2001 'Comparison city data is 2-3 years old. Fees have likely increased since that time. 2 Portions of this fee may not be applicable depending on a project's location in the Far West. • Far West Development Impact Fees vs. Proportionate Share of Capital Costs For a Four Bedroom Single Family Detached Home Proportionate Share Type of Fee of Capital Costs Impact Fee Amount Difference Park Land 2,258 2,258 — Park Capital 3,295 824 ($2,471) Sanitary Sewer 1,089 1,089 — Water 1,300 1,300 — Public Safety Building 691 691 Roadway(City) 930 930 • Subtotal $9,563 $7,092 ($2,471) Roadway (County) 930 930 — School Land 1,490 1,490 — School Capital 20,834 5,209 (15,625) Library 190 190 Subtotal $23,444 $7,819 ($15,625) Grand Total $33,007 $14,911 ($18,096) III Source: Cityof Elgin"Development Impact Fees and Contribution-Proposed Revisions," May, 2001 Adopted Impact Fees by the City Council,various dates • Proposed Water System Capital Connection Fee A. Background 1. The City currently imposes a water system capital improvement impact fee. The fee is based on a development's acreage and the cost to treat and deliver water. The fee has little relation to a development's demand for water and the cost to treat and deliver that water. 2. State statutes do not provide a basis in law to assess water system impact fees. Area homebuilder associations have been filing lawsuits against municipalities from improper use and assessment of impact fees. The focus has been on fees with no basis in law. 3. State Statutes do provide for a municipality to assess a connection fee (65 ILCS 5/11-150- 1). The proceeds of such a system can be used for the construction, expansion, and extension of the water system to meet the requirements of the system's new users. This was raised as a viable alternative by the Community Development Group back in 1999 when alternative ideas for Elgin's impact fees were first discussed. 4. The Legal Department has advised that it would be prudent for the City of Elgin to eliminate its current water impact fee system and instead devise a connection fee • consistent with State statutes. Further, such a connection fee should based on a development's demand for water(as opposed to acreage) and the cost to treat and convey that water. B. Assumptions/Data 1. Design and implement a capital connection fee in lieu of an impact fee per 65 ILCS 5/11 - 150- 1 to allow for the general expansion of the municipal water utility. 2. It appears that the Statute does not require the use of a particular methodology to derive the fee. However, it is still necessary to use a rational basis for a new capital connection fee. 3. The following exhibit identifies the various past and anticipated future water system projects that will benefit and meet the requirements of all new users of the City's water treatment and supply system. 4. Total construction and financing costs of improving the treatment and transmission systems: $69.47m. 5. Total additional treatment and transmission capacity as a result of the $69.47m expense: 16.0m gallons per day. • 6. Cost per gallon per day: $69.47m = 16m gallons/day=$4.34 • 7. Average daily consumption per single family dwelling unit 3 p.e. x 100 gallons=300 gallons per day. 8. Typical single family service is one inch in size. 9. Standard connection fee equals: $ 4.34 per gallon of treatment/transmission capacity x 300 average daily consumption per single family unit $1,302 (say $1,300)capital connection fee for one inch service C. Fee Proposal Water System Water Service Size Area* Multiplier** Connection Fee 1" or less 0.79 1.00 $ 1,300 1.25" 1.23 1.56 $ 2,028 (say $2,030) 1.50" 1.77 2.24 $ 2,912 (say$2,910) 2" 3.14 3.97 $ 5,161 (say$5,160) 4" 12.57 15.91 $ 20,683 (say $20,680) Greater than 4" $ 25,000 • *Cross section of pipe. • **Area of pipe divided by area of one-inch pipe. D. Assessment/Use of Fees • New capital connection fee is in addition to meter charges and service lateral fees. • Capital connection fee to be assessed at the time domestic water service or when an increase in the size of the domestic water service is requested. Size of service to be declared. • An additional capital connection fee is to be assessed for any separate/segregated fire service. • Capital connection fee is to be uniformly applied to all new construction city-wide. • New capital connection fee system is economic development friendly. It shifts the burden of fees away from commercial and industrial and toward residential development (the opposite is the case with the existing system). Residential development is expected to dominate Elgin's permitting environment for the foreseeable future. • Cost estimates for water system improvements to be completed in future years are to be 111 reviewed annually to determine accuracy. • E. Individual Comparisons Example Present Proposed 3 Bedroom Single Family in Columbine w/1" service $ 397.71 $ 1,300 4 Bedroom Single Family in Columbine w/1"service $ 516.38 $ 1,300 2 Bedroom Townhouse in Fieldstone w/1" service $ 153.32 $ 1,300 3 Bedroom Townhouse in Sierra Ridge w/1" service $ 426.78 $ 1,300 100,000 sq. ft. Wispark Industrial building on 10 acres $ 18,830.02 $ 5,160 w/2" service 250,000 sq. ft. Wispark Industrial building on 25 acres $47,075.50 $20,680 w/4" service 25,000 sq. ft. office building w/1.5" service $ 3,671.80 $ 2,910 on a 2.5 acre parcel F. Annual Revenue Comparisons Actual Fees Collected Estimated Fees Collected if Under Existing Program New Proposal was in Effect* Construction Activity 1997-2000 $1,125,619 $2,400,000 (1,267 residential structures, 146 non-residential structures) • *Assumes one-inch services for residential and two-inch services for non-residential. • • List of Capital Improvements to Treat and Transmit an Additional 16 million gallons per day Name Amount Name Amount Main Plant Expansion $ 20.29m Lagoon Access $ 0.35m Water Storage 2.46m Truck wash land/capital 0.23m River Intake 1.55m Riverside/State Water Main 1.34m Airlite Plant West Zone 1.30m State Street Transmission 2.75m Pumps Airlite Transfer Line 4.7m Villa Street Water Main 0.58m Ozonation (growth portion) 1.88m Subtotal $ 43.86m Airlite/Russell Water Main 1.26m Financing Costs* 25.61m • Russell 2.0m gal. Tower 2.78m Total 69.47m Fox Lane Booster 0.99m Fox Ln/Randall Water Main 1.40m * Financing costs for a 20 year bond at 5%annual interest • 5 ILCS 5/Illinois Municipal Code httpi/www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/ch65/ch65act5articles/ch65act5Sub308 • Illinois Compiled Statutes Municipalities Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS 5/ [H0\IE] [CHAPTERS] [PUBLIC ACTS][ SEARCH ] [BOTTOM ] (65 ILCS 5/) DIVISION 150. WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE CONNECTION CHARGE (65 ILCS 5/11-150-1) Sec. 11-150-1. The corporate authorities of any municipality operating a waterworks, sewerage or combined waterworks and sewerage system have the power by ordinance to collect a fair and reasonable charge for connection to any such system in addition to those charges covered by normal taxes, for the construction, expansion and extension of the works of the system, the charge to be assessed against new or additional users of the system and to be known as a connection charge, except that no connection or water usage charge shall exceed the actual cost required for the installation or usage of an automatic sprinkler i�ystem. The funds thus collected shall be used by the municipality for ts general corporate purposes with primary application thereof being made by the necessary expansion of the works of the system to meet the requirement's of the new users thereof. (Source: P.A. 85-784 . ) [TOP] • • Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Recapture Fee A. Background 1. The following proposal was previously reviewed by various staff members in the summer of 2001. At that time, there was a consensus to proceed with the methodology as proposed. The delay since then was due, in part,to the need to complete the sanitary sewer master plan and the 2003-2007 sewer financial plan. 2. The following employs this methodology and the use of current cost and acreage figures. 3. Like the existing water fee,the City's existing sewer recapture fees are based on acreage and land use data variables that relate to lineal feet and the cost to construct sanitary sewer lines. The fee has little relation to a development's demand to convey and transmit sewage. 4. However, the use of such an acreage based system is fairly well entrenched. Obligations under existing annexation agreements, development agreements, and intergovernmental agreements universally use the acreage based system. Any change to a demand based system would result in a two-tiered approach to sewer fees. This would add unnecessary confusion and administrative difficulties. • B. Assumption/Data 1. The following tables and maps identify the two major recapture areas for the western portions of Elgin (those portions in which recapture fees are applicable). These are the a. North-Northwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Area and the b. South-Southwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Area. These recapture areas have the following sub-areas within them: a. North-Northwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Area. i. North Randall ii. Sleepy Hollow iii. Tyler Creek/Big Timber b. West-Southwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Area. i. Bowes Road ii. Bowes Creek 2. Net developable acreage is calculated for each sub-area. Net acreage is determined by multiplying gross acreage times a factor of 0.70 to account for streets, detention,open space, floodplains,wetlands, etc. 3. Costs to construct sewer systems are assigned to such sub-area. These amounts are then 4110 divided by the net acres in each sub-area to determine a cost per net area. • 4. Recapture fees are then assessed on a per unit basis (per dwelling unit,per 1000sq. ft. of building, etc.)using the calculations and data noted on the following tables. 5. Any fees for recapture agreements involving privately funded sewer improvements are in addition to the fees noted herein. • 4110 • North -Orthwest • Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas/Fees (Northwest, Tyler Creek, Big Timber and North Randall Intercepter Sewers) Fee Per 1,000 sq,ft.of Construction Financing Net Acres in Cost Per Fee Per Dwelline Unit Commercial Buildine Fee Per 1,000 sa.ft.of Su -Area Costs('1 Costs(21 Total Costs + Water Shed = Net Acre L31 01 Industrial Building(51 L r: r' '.••Ir •'.. :r;r .,',.;. w .'.. ;, — ., ''`'s7�'.juPS s it.. ..r DGy KA o,a • :�y. W 4 .+ '� .v . .' F ya . 1... .••^',x North Randall Base(NW Intercepter Sewers) $4,974,128 $2,904,363 $7,878,491 4505 $1,749 $437 $161 $100 Other(N.Randall Intercepter Sewer) $3,767,584 $2,199,060 $5,967,452 1532 $3.895 $974 $358 $224 Fee: $5,644 $1,411 $519 $324 y. . -.'.t '-7 1.}. Sleepy Hollow Base(NW Intercepter Sewers) $4,974,128 $2,904,363 $7,878,491 4505 $1,749 $437 $161 $100 Other(Part of N.Randall Intercepter) $1,503,971 $878,160 $2,382,131 1532 $1.555 $312 $143. 194 Fee: $3,304 $826 $304 $190 Tyler Creek/Big Timber Base(NW Intercepter Sewers) $4,974,120 $2,904,363 $7,878,491 4505 $1,749 $437 $161 $100 Other(Tyler Creek/Big Timber) $8,645,889 $5,048,281 $13,694,170 2973 $4.600 $1.152 $423 $264 Fee: $6,355 $1,589 $584 $364 01/06/03 sr 1. Per the City Engineering Department 2. Financing Costs for a 20 year bond at 5%annual interest 3. Assume an average of four dwelling units per acre density 4. Assume an average floor area ratio of 0.25. Fee represents a proportionate share of an acre based on building coverage. 5. Assume an average floor area ratio of 0.40. Fee represents a proportionate share of an acre based on building coverage. 6. An individual fee is not to exceed the amount resulting from these calculations, or$50,000, whichever is less. I North-Northwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas • (Northwest,Tyler Creek, Big Timber,and North Randall Interceptor Sewers) le 1 :01011 i rra5/ I lillikhop I m. s.-- 2'S II - -,.. - c S -" - ' -lir' 1 ' f ..7 L, ' .. 0 I ,-.------ --,---- 9 .4 .-, ler ›. --.... / --,--,:_.,-4.--7.t. ---"0111 ,; 11k------ r LIlittb.,q /, ,,,,, ..._i '-w,,,,c.,41„..1.,..,,,. .T-__,-• _114/ 1 , . ., _,____ ,..,..„,..„ ..„.> z ____ .... 41 ___ _ _ ... _ _ rzsal ak--- •i..._.'. __ 1 l .• ,, . di f S. ill . . . . ht, .-- ,.-,----N,,,,,, ,...__,,,,,,.,,,,,-;,- ,:-„,_;._,---„,i i ,,...• ,,,,- _94:1‘A.:a.. :' _- • , it - 121 li- / / �s � North-Northwest • Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas (Northwest, Tyler Creek, Big Timber, and North Randall Interceptor Sewers) North Randall Sub-Area District Gross Acre Net Acre NRIS1 76.396 53.477 NRIS2 101.846 71.292 NRIS3 194.704 136.293 NRIS4 611.116 427.781 NRIS6 160.293 112.205 NRIS5 662.764 463.935 NRIS7 69.558 48.691 Sub Total 1876.677 x.70= 1313.674 Sleepy Hollow Sub-Area District Gross Acre Net Acre • SH1 226.000 158.200 SH2 85.951 60.166 Sub Total 311.951 x.70= 218.366 Northwest Sub-Area District Gross Acre Net Acre N W ISA 167.837 117.486 NWIS1 586.644 410.651 N W IS2 280.194 196.136 NWIS2A 645.956 452.169 NWIS3 513.277 359.294 NWIS4 92.013 64.409 NWIS5 439.614 307.730 NWIS6 40.020 28.014 NWIS7 646.493 452.545 N W IS8 289.794 202.856 NWIS9 353.167 247.217 NWIS10 20.224 14.157 NWIS11 85.783 60.048 • NWIS12 85.732 60.012 Sub Total 4246.748 x.70= 2972.724 Total Net Acres in North-Northwest Area 4505 • • • West - Southwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas/Fees (Bowes Road and Otter Creek Intercepter Sewers, Otter Creek Lift Station) Fee Per Fee Per 1,000 sq.ft.of Fee Per 1,000 sq.ft. Construction Gross Costs Net Acres in Cost Per Dwelling Unit Commercial Building of Industrial Building Sub-Area Costs(11 IQ - Water Shed = Acre Ll Ll ll ",:f.;',:;,.1,';‘_ kw " �.s,•;-, ` .a � k',kY S• a , ' w7i '�F _ 1 , - r ,+, +,1d „4,,i$ 1 . p �?1l %�y����'h�,y,,' ° ;>�y',,. ti:,�!, .C1nx '., V.4',va >,.n.) t rVtia ' ai! ,..;$}�":k �y.4,:,,iL,. '4,*,10 . .�r4ti'.2'143, , , 8,, )6s w F ''.^4..':',,%,s,. 'x ! C Bowes Road Base $10,199,834 $16,155,454 6369 $2,537 $634 $233 $146 Other(BRIS Trunk 20) $5,000,000 $7,919,468 4357 $1.818 $455 $167 $104 Fee: $4,355 $1,089 $400 $250 y�,�.i, �i, ��C*4�"l't'?�`!'-7l:'v' 7 e ti' J. d '°a.w .'�: ti > fIf"�" yyiiyee qr tv ,i h"ii. +,. �'if•' 1�.,W r ;t" yyn i S -,s,� . . .. ;Fr [4r i };yy (�' R.,�'�y�A . , ".+3•s n k `4WD ,'J v' Lx``.7 t,h .1 14 f7l-R�. .4., rt .v �.k11, .,t•`�•i y,. .( Ya.m"{,, ;, . v7.T >s',,,,Ii �iw�'.s "r^ ,h„ i`� ,' , ;,Y •.0 ,. •r ...t y,,It. ay?,.� ,{'i. x,,r ...r .x!1y.,,..r,,,i,..„.4 ..,� A� � ,,,,i-..,.�^' �'� •�` �tt'�;�.r;. ta ,,,,I .„,t ,.: u .. ... ....... �,',. '� iCt'. � .. .4';. Bowes Creek Base $10,199,834 $16,155,454 6369 $2,537 $634 $233 $146 Other (Bowes Creek oversizing) $1,000,000 $1,583,893 2012 $787 $19Z $72 $45 Fee: $3,324 $831 $305 $191 01/06/03 sr 1. Per the City Engineering Department. 2. Includes financing costs (assumes 20 year bond at 5% annual interest). 3. Assume an average of four dwelling units per acre density. 4. Assume an average floor area ratio of 0.25. Fee represents a proportionate share of an acre based on building coverage. 5. Assume an average floor area ratio of 0.40. Fee represents a proportionate share of an acre based on building coverage. 6. An individual fee is not to exceed the amount resulting from these calculations, or$50,000, whichever is less. 5 - __- -.� - _-_H . South-Southwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas _ (Bowes Road, Bowes Creek, Creek Interceptor Sewers, and OtterCreek Lift Station) • - i baLi � f \, 4 1111 . 4 illiL. ; . „kir \ BRISA 1 \ / _- __ .-,..._......_msili lit. �: ,,NN.N, ,_., 1 1 W4 , OM I . BRIS2 BRIS1t-'---------------------_ --- ---' � OUT \ 1 Ft...., ip_______________ /I BRIS4 iiiii BRIS5 1. ..40.1,11, BRISS toilik 11111,1 ,1P ", + id, il , Lit.. IL___ Ail 4. . .„--. ____i____ T,610004 BRIS,O . . 1-----____- .- I.. , Ara' ... --.,-------,--", ,,-.. r ---N .2?-. il I ,- 41 ,_._ .. , ..„ i,„. o a � I r3 OUT s ^�-- � ! OUT _/ r. 111111 411: BCS _+ vY BCS �. YC D i• • South-Southwest Sanitary Sewer Recapture Areas (Bowes Road, Bowes Creek Interceptor Sewers, and Otter Creek Lift Station) Bowes Road Sub-Area District Gross Acre Net Acre BRISA 245.424 171.797 BRISB 218.054 152.638 BRISC 203.84 142.688 BRIS1 454.556 318.189 BRIS2 688.915 482.241 BRIS3 193.780 135.646 BRIS4 659.128 461.39 BRIS5 1076.922 753.845 BRIS7 96.387 67.471 BRIS8 439.272 307.490 BRIS9 1161.766 813.236 BRIS10 179.656 125.759 BRIS11 236.680 165.676 B R I S 12 369.663 258.764 IIITotal 622.043 x.70= 4356.83 Bowes Creek Sub-Area District Gross Acre Net Acre BC1 162.369 113.658 BC2 292.594 204.816 BC3 34/07 24.295 BC4 82.942 58.059 BC5 1072.286 750.600 BC6 116.981 81.887 BC7 631.874 442.312 BC8 269.462 188.623 BC9 210.579 147.405 Total 2873.794 x.70= 2011.655 Total Net Acres in South-Southwest Area 6369 • • Building Coverage's Proportionate Share of an.Acre Commercial 43,560 Sq. ft. in an acre x .25 Typical floor area ratio 10,890 sq. ft. Typical commercial building's coverage on an acre $ 4,773 Sewer Recapture Fee per acres(BRIS example) 10,890 sq. ft. $ 0.438 Fee per square feet of commercial building $ 438 Fee per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial building Industrial • 43,560 x. .40 Sq. ft. in an acre Typical Floor Area Ratio 17,424 sq. ft. Typical industrial building's coverage on an acre $ 4773 Sewer Recapture fee per acre(BRIS example) 17,424 sq. ft. $ 0.274 Fee per square feet of industrial building $ 275 Fee per 1,000 square feet of industrial building. • • • • • Far West Sewer Bond Financing Year Projects Financing NRIS NWIS BRIS BCEIS 1991 Big Timber& N Randall Intercepter $1,576,388 $788,194 $788,194 1992A Tyler Creek& Bowes Rd Intercepter 640,256 539,163 101,093 1995 NW &N Randall Intercepter& Otter 48,217 Creek Lift Station 987,903 483,237 456,449 1996 Otter Creek Lift Station & Big Timber& Randall Rd Sanitary Sewer 2,548,807 253,211 250;429 2,045,167 1997 Tyler Creek Intercepter 916,153 916,153 1998 Tyler Creek Intercepter 1,207,319 1,207,319 1998B Refunding Issue of 1991,1992A& 1995 1,231,941 1,657,674' 87,158 67,044 Bond Issue (see projects above) 3,043,817 1999 Tyler Creek & N Randall Intercepter 1,810,075 516,898 1,293,177 2000 tyler Creek & Bowes Rd Intercepter and Otter Creek Lift Station 2,410,204 194,331 1,246,744 969,129 2001 Bowes Rd Intercepter Phase 2 &3 1,140,482 570,241 570,241 2003 Bowes Rd Intercepter Trunk 20 2,234,544 2,234,544 Total $18,515,948 $3,273,481 $7,302,889 $4,239,780 $3,699,798 • • MEMORANDUM TO: JIM NOWICKI, CPA, FISCAL SERVICES MANAGER FROM: HARESH MODI,.P.E.,CIVIL ENGINEER ria".„ � • SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Project:Impact Fee Calculations DATE: April 4,2001 COPY: ...4Iark Biernacki, Community Development Director John Loete,P.E., Public Works Director Joe Evers,P.E., City Engineer Jerry Deering,Director of Code Adm. And Development Services File Enclosed please find a revised worksheet of updated costs incurred to the City for installing and/or improving sewer collection system on west side of Elgin. The table was revised to reflect added costs for proposed Trunk 20(TR-20) interceptor sewer to Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer(BRIS) area. It will extend a trunk sewer line along Randall Road from South Street to Sandy Creek. Trunk 20 interceptor sewer will serve study areas BRIS-El, BRIS-E-2,BRIS-E3 and BRIS-E4 as highlighted on attached map. Currently,BRIS-E4 is completely built out and BRIS-E3 is partially built out. Please call me if you have any questions at X-5967. HMAun 110 04/04/01 IP IDID SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE COSTS AND SERVICE AREA DISTRIBUTION MAP SERIAL CAPITAL CONST.BY COST COST INTEREST CONTROL ADJUSTED AREA PE'S ACTUAL ESTIMATEDESTIMATEDUMULAITVIEST.TOTAL REF.s NO. PROJECT ESTIMATED ACTUAL RATE DATE COST SERVED SERVED IMPACT PUBLIC PRIVATE IMPACT FEEEWER FEE: FEE RECAPT. RECAPT. PER ACRE PER ACRE + Al Northwest Interceptor Sewer phase I City of Elgin $4,287,442.11 1996 2 Al Northwest Interceptor Sewer phase II FRWRO 9686.686.00 1996 TOTAL FOR NWIS PHASE I AND PHASE II"A" $4,974,128.11 6908 45332 4 B1 North Randall Interceptor Sewer City of Elgin 93,007,942.46 1992 5 B2 North Randall Interceptor Sewer Kane Count) 9247,830.32 1997 6 B3 North Randall Interceptor Sewer WlePark Cot $512,011.26 1999 SUBTOTAL FOR NORTH RANDALL INT.SEWER"B" . _ $3,767,584.04 1482 15679 r TOTAL FOR NRIS AREA(A/2+B) $6,254,648.10 1482 15679 r C 1 Big Timber/Tyler Creek Interceptor City of Elgin 92.664,077.84 1992 e C2 Tyler Creek Interceptor Phase V City of Elgin $4,084,850.24 1999 G C3 Tyler Creek Interceptor Phase VI City of Elgin $1,103,367.50 2000 TOTAL FOR TYLER CREEK INT.SEWER"C" $7,852,295.58 _ 5428, 29653 _ +o 01 Big Timber Interceptor Ph.1,2&3 FRWRD $253.358.00 1988 ,, 02 Blg Timber Interceptor Sewer Labor Tempi $0.00 1989 '2 D3 Blp Timber Interceptor Sewer 101 9540,181.00 1997 TOTAL FOR BIG TIMBER INT.SEWER"D" $793,539.00 5426 29653 TOTAL FOR NWIS AREA(A/2+C+D) 511,132,898.64 5426 29653 Proledslsewer_plan updatelCott_brkdwn.apw Page 1 of 2 04/04/01 • • • SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE COSTS AND SERVICE AREA DISTRIBUTION MAP SERIAL CAPITAL CONST.BY COST COST INTEREST CONTROL ADJUSTED AREA PE'S ACTUAL ESTIMATEDESTIMATEDUMULATTV1EST.TOTAL REF.a NO. PROJECT ESTIMATED ACTUAL RATE DATE COST SERVED SERVED IMPACT PUBLIC PRIVATE IMPACT FI,EiEWER FEE: FEE RECAPT. RECAPT. PER ACRE PER ACRE a El Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Phase I FRWRO 50.00 N/A iu 02 Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Phase IB(parallel)Section I City of Elgin $2,170,412.00 2001 ire E3 Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Phase IS(parallel)Section ii City of Elgin $2,400,000.00 2001 is E4 Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Phase II FRWRO $989.128.19 1991 E5 Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer Trunk 20(BRIS TR-20) City of Elgin $5,000,000.00 TOTAL FOR BRIS AREA"E" $10,539,540.19 6048 49593 ,s Fl Otter Creek Llft Station City of Elgin $3,280,294.06 N/A 17 F2 BRIS Force Main City of Elgin 31,400,000.00 N/A TOTAL FOR BCEIS AND STONY CR.AREA"F" $4,660,294.06 3441 27346 TOTAL FOR BRIS AND SCETS+STONY CREEK AREA 515,199,834.25 9489 76939 S-ca:c ot.v (IDRi. Notes: North Randall Interceptor Sewer.Net Developable Area:1482 Acres,Net PE■15679 /C1) /r1,' 3 344 (From Clark Dietz study drawing,assuming net area is 0.7 times gross area) Northwest Interrceptor Sewer(TCIS):N.D.A.'5426 Acres,Net PE=29653 (From 2000 B&W study table minus Numbers contributing to North Randall) Bowes Road Interceptor Sewer(BRIS):N.D.A.•6048 Acres,Net PE•49593 (From 2000 B&W study table) Stony Creek+Bowes Creek East Interceptor Sewer(BCEIS):N.D.A.=3441,40 Acres,Net PE=27436 (From B&W 2000 study table) There is no acreage numbers assigned for NWIS I and NWIS Il as well as BRIS I,II service areas as it is assumed that the oversizing In not beneficial to current developed properties. BRIS TR-20 is a proposed interceptor sewer to be installed from Sandy Creek to South Street along Randall Road. \Pro)ecta4ewer_Plan update\Coat brkdwn.ppw Page 2 of 2 • 7 . 47 NORTH I X \ -----------.— \ i.....,..„.,:,...N„,,,,..—,.. !/ 47c-E1 `` - \ NYYIS4K+ I7w�s a¢ 47C-C2A `�� . I •\ , t 47C-WI / _ i� wits\ ��ISW4 r ` f ar�s /. MANS-EI • C I / IWNSEI i 47C-05 47CY1Q QC{4 I rmsE2 47'00° VMS 475{1 I A E4 / 470-,7 47C-E5 avrs E3 aWISE3 47 Bim, k ►+YIIS ES I BRQWI - I 475 jI ,ir t ' I Q5.C1 _ /— ) 1 ` BRISE, �� 475-WI ` BR{Sy46 ' 13111: °ws BR6rv7 i I asps 47s i E4 IPA 1 I 47502 475�IQ a7 $OUTH °alsvw . { 4754 4T5-E5• ° ° BRIs Mt6-B6 —. 1 �, 475. 475 WS 4r5 C4 E° "SOWN) eRasa acme I saw 1 p 1,41tiAhLISS4,11 .cww \ ! 47S-� - 6RISfD • I / _ ° °NSE° waa ` 174,2 I cy 1 NN ems 1 i i ..- DMA Ic+ I I �cwa -1"-----....„,..>,____:n.,, 1 WIC des 'Q.a �V I�u�" I 1 .cc ImwX www • R.. CR -_EK i .. .w \ 1 it ICA ! 1 1 . . • MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Biernacki, Community Development Manager FROM: Joe Evers, P.E., City Engin, '! SUBJECT: North Randall Interceptor Cost/Per Acre DATE: February 20, 2001 You have inquired as to how the cost for the North Randall Interceptor Sewer were calculated. I am not familiar with the system the City has today and the numbers used dvithin that system. To provide the answer to your question quickly I utilized a sub area map from the North Randall Interceptor TEPA permit file. Using sidwell maps we verified the acreage(gross obviously)and inserted these numbers on the map. I did not provide numbers for I, J and K as well as a portion of H as the areas south of the Tollway do not drain to the North Randall Interceptor Sewer. I used one half the cost of the Northwest Interceptor Sewer assuming the other half served areas west of Randall and South of the Tollway. The areas within Elgin in 1996 when the Northwest • Interceptor Sewer was constructed were not used in the calculations. I did this because those parcels already had service and the Northwest Interceptor Sewer was built strictly to expand the area that could be served by the north plant. The North Randall Interceptor Sewer was increase in size to serve areas in Sleepy Hollow via a lift station. I did not figure any numbers for the Sleepy Hollow FPA because I am not confident this will ever happen and it was not the City's intent to serve areas north of the Tollway and east of Randall. If Sleepy Hollow is figured in it will have an impact,however, I cannot tell what extent that impact would be at this time. The total cost of the sewers I have used do not include any funds other than those typically found in engineering, acquisition and construction. Cost typical to bonding improvements or staff time have been excluded. I adjusted our engineering, acquisition and construction costs by three percent per year based upon the year the sewer was completed. I have attached a map of the sub areas and a spread sheet for areas north of the Tollway. The number I generate is$3,667.09 per each gross acre upstream of the last phase Northwest Interceptor Sewer(completed by WisPark). Please note on the sub area map that only a portion of the Pulte parcel(south of 72 east of Randall)was intended to drain to the Northwest Interceptor Sewer. • Cc: David Lawry John Loete BI++4 RDAp • \ I El : f� c$. - _ - sl a — / ¢ Inn+ ROAD - ; RT. 72 -_©_ © l4 4 D 152.77% I a E - ----\;1Q I — 3 CI Dundee Pum. • ,� - Station ''"r&7 © lekSleepy Hollow \ .-____ -- 0 ) AV (...ty Pump Station 0 ,.II.Rf igi s Jo, Dw ..IllihhahhL_4111111141'(°'D its 'II •44....14,,..............................eir � �i 60' ..,„,,,, de' 1\V 11 11:41111 7 xisting :0" \j • CDIc - North Randall Interceptor FIGURE ENGmEERS !.RCHI TEC TS P Sub—Areas & Routing 2 �"Z+�uP.UCN, I�liNCIS c.c. . .. . /Oen( ROAD CI , 0 '1" -I r -9:1 X c . . ROAD Frt. 72 Ni 0 - tpo 4 E i 7 154arb _ 1 • 4.411 E ID 471. v Dundee Pum• _------- ,,,t,.. • 1 , 5 i v r-;:. Station - ' .._________---- 0 `7' . a, •_r----71___.cti _ -' Sleepy Hollow • Pump Station 1 RkkjA/ 0 k 1,PP"v"D mo . No \111lthhhL:: 44„.. 0 'Irgop.- cr, "If/Nf/-""."'"'"'"'"""'"""••-............u/rw...---. taii /\\ 1 xisting 40" V J.. 0 CDI CLARK DET FIC. FIGURE ENGINEERS ARO-4I MCI'S North Randall Interceptor Sub—Areas & Routing 2 .... ii,..as JORTH RANUALL IN I tKl.tr I vrc JCvvmr .._.__._ . \REAS ACRE•CUM. AC SEWERS SERVING AREA SEWESTS COST/ACRE a 473.100 473.1 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK, FUTURE ID 3 446.770 919.87 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK, FUTURE 352.770 1272.64 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK J 160.000 1432.64 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK, FUTURE 157,060 1589.7 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK, FUTURE 351.910 1941.61 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE, WISPARK $543,192.75 $279.76 3 97,040. :2038.65 NW 1 & 2, NRI, KANE $278,710.11 $136.71 -I 79.444 2118,094 NW 1 & 2, NRI $1:12-4c42, $1,852.93 0.000 2118.094 NW 1 & 2 - $2,960,427.23 , $1,397.68 2118.094 `-----�__N.J $3,667.09 'Votes: 1. Areas I, J, K and parts of H are not served through the North Randall Interceptor 2. Used 1/2 the cost of NW 1 & 2 for the NRI system. 4'e't/41(".1; A\ J, to 2001 T z I NORTHWEST INT. 1 (NW 1) $4,287,442.11 4,970,320.48i' ,4 5,1 .24 r NORTHWEST INT. 2 (NW 2) $688,686.00 $95Q x. 4.04 $475,2 .01 .a NORTH RANDALL INTERCEPTOR (NRI) $3,007,942.46 ,924,682. $6,885,109.91 t, NORTH RANDALL INT BY KANE CO (KANE) $247,630.32 275; 70.11 $7,163,820.02 NORTH RANDALL INT BY WISPARK (WIS) _____$,512,211.2§ $_543,192.75 $8,741,712.15 $2,960,427.25 $6,885,109.91 $7,163,820.02 26-Dec-00 SEWER IMPACT FEE ALLOCATION 0 TYLER CREEK BOWES NORTH RANDALL TOTAL INTERCEPTOR ROAD INTERCEPTOR 1991 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $3,900.54 $0.00 $0.00 $3,900.54 1991 INVESTMENT INCOME $28.79 $28.79 1991 BALANCE $3,929.33 . $0.00 $0.00 $3,929.33 1992 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $0.00 $213,833.86 $0.00 $213,833.86 1992 INVESTMENT INCOME $61.64 $3,354.46 $3,416.10 1992 BALANCE $3,990.97 $217,188.32 $0.00 $221,179.29 1993 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $106,944.12 $161,129.10 $0.00 $268,073.22 1993 INVESTMENT INCOME $1,196.07 $4,078.90 $5,274.97 1991 SEWER BOND PRINCIPAL $96,720.00 $103,280.00 $200,000.00 1991 SEWER BOND INTEREST $123,366.36 $131,733.64 $255,100.00 1992 SEWER BOND INTEREST $87,217.84 $19,954.77 $49,581.24 $156,753.85 1993 BALANCE -$195,173.04 $362,441.55 -$284,594.88 -$117,326.37 1994 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $3,290.27 $132,174.96 $4,599.15 $140,064.38 1994 INVESTMENT INCOME $1,390.41 $1,390.41 1994 BALANCE -$191,882.77 $496,006.92 -$279,995.73 $24,128.42 411) 1995 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $1,269.27 $102,395.84 $5,528.79 $109,193.90 1995 INVESTMENT INCOME $3,716.78 $3,716.78 1995 BALANCE -$190,613.50 $602,119.54 -$274,466.94 $137,039.10 1996 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $3,719.09 $130,896.19 $14,691.42 $149,306.70 1996 INVESTMENT INCOME $10,192.97 $10,192.97 1996 BALANCE -$186,894.41 $743,208.70 -$259,775.52 $296,538.77 1997 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $39,727.22 $134,732.31 $14,643.85 $189,103.38 1997 INVESTMENT INCOME $20,446.54 $20,446.54 1997 BALANCE -$147,167.19 $898,387.55 -$245,131.67 $506,088.69 1998 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $56,296.94 $439,135.60 $42,625.51 $538,058.05 1998 INVESTMENT INCOME $33,756.38 $33,756.38 1998 BALANCE -$90,870.25 $1,371,279.53 -$202,506.16 $1,077,903.12 1999 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $109,111.66 $276,299.76 $13,386.67 $398,798.09.- 1999 398,798.091999 INVESTMENT INCOME $649.05 $57,144.75 $57,793.80 1999 BOWES INTERCEPTOR $42,201.58 $42,201.58 1999 BALANCE $18,890.46 $1,662,522.46 -$189,119.49 $1,492,293.43 2000 IMPACT FEE RECEIPTS $253,840.47 $144,690.82 $80,953.85 $479,485.14 2000 INVESTMENT INCOME $7,154.53 $44,037.83 $51,192.36 2000 BOWES INTERCEPTOR $128,489.42 $128,489.42 2000 BALANCE $273,379.98 $1,735,868.61 -$108,165.64 $1,894,481.51 0 26-Dec-00 • SEWER IMPACT FEES INVESTMENT TYLER CREEK BOWES NORTH RANDALL TOTAL INCOME INTERCEPTOR ROAD INTERCEPTOR 1991 $28.79 $3,900.54 $0.00 $0.00 $3,929.33 1992 $3,416.10 $0.00 $213,833.86 $0.00 $217,249.96 1993 $5,274.97 $106,944.12 $161,129.10 $0.00 $273,348.19 -- 1994 $1,390.41 $3,290.27 $132,174.96 $4,599.15 $141,454.79 1995 $3,716.78 $1,269.27 $102,395.84 $5,528.79 $112,910.68 1996 $10,192.97 $3,719.09 $130,896.19 $14,691.42 $159,499.67 1997 $20,446.54 $39,727.22 $134,732.31 $14,643.85 $209,549.92 1998 $33,756.38 $56,296.94 $439,135.60 $42,625.51 $571,814.43 1999 $57,793.80 $109,111.66 $276,299.76 $13,386.67 $456,591.89 2000 $51,192.36 $253,840.47 $144,690.82 $80,953.85 $530,677.50 TOTAL $187,209.10 $578,099.58 $1,735,288.44 $176,429.24 $2,677,026.36 EXPENDITURES 1991 SEWER BOND PRINCIPAL - PAID 1993 $200,000.00 • 1991 SEWER BOND INTEREST - PAID 1993 $255,100.00 1992 SEWER BOND INTEREST PAID 1993 $156,753.85 1999 BOWES ROAD ENGINEERING- PAID 1999 $42,201.58 2000 BOWES ROAD ENGINEERING- PAID 2000 & ENCUMBRANCES $128,510.42 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $782,565.85 BALANCE @ AUGUST 31,2000 $1,894,460.51 0 • Proposed City of Elgin/ Kane County Roadway Improvement Contribution A. Background 1. The City of Elgin presently requires a roadway improvement contribution as a part of its annexation agreements. Their calculation is based a development's frontage along a collector or arterial street. Unfortunately, a large acreage development may have a sizeable impact on the adjacent road, yet its contribution is determined using the development's minimal lineal frontage along said road. This results in an inequity between the impact that is created and the dollar amount that is contributed. 2. An entirely new calculation for this contribution is being proposed to address this inequity in certain to-be-annexed portions of the City's Far West Planning Area. This system's methodology is based on a new development paying a proportionate share of road improvement costs based on its acreage, not frontage. The contributions are then calculated using the number of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential buildings per acre. The proceeds from these contributions are to then be distributed to • the City and the County based on the jurisdictional responsibilities for certain roads. 3. The City adopted an interim contribution requirement in May, 2001. This was prepared using generalized estimates for the cost to improve roadways in the far west area. Since then, a thorough and comprehensive report was prepared to assess all of the road improvements necessary to meet the demands of both new development and general traffic increases in the far west area through the year 2020. The results of this effort can be found in the report entitled"Kane County Transportation Planning Area Study—Elgin Far West Planning Area Roadway Improvement Plan", dated January 2003. Copies of this report are available from the City of Elgin's Planning and Neighborhood Services Department. 4. An updated contribution schedule has been prepared using the results of this study. The contributions, and the methodology used to create them, are to be a part of all future annexation agreements wherein they are acknowledged and agreed to be specifically and uniquely attributed to the development proposed as a part of the annexation agreement and that various road improvements to be addressed by the contributions would not otherwise be anticipated absent the annexation of the to-be-developed property. • 1 0.Assumptions/Data 1. The calculations used to determine the contributions noted herein are based on the development of land in that portion of the Far West Planning Area as shown on the attached map entitled "Elgin Far West Planning Area-2002 Developments." There are 5,276 gross developable acres in this portion of the planning area. 2. Of this amount, 4,832 acres are designated for residential development and 444 acres are designated for commercial/industrial development. The actual contributions will be applicable to any developments of land that will occur in the area identified in Exhibit 1 attached. 3. This portion of the Far West is largely vacant and not-yet-annexed. It is assumed that existing developments are adequately served by the road network, as said network exists in the year 2003. Therefore, new road improvements in the area are for the benefit of future development of the 5,276 gross developable acres, with said development to contribute funds to cover the costs of the needed road improvements. 4. Other portions of the Far West Planning Area are experiencing a moderate pace of development. A majority of this acreage is already annexed or under annexation agreement. Since the new contribution proposed here is to be applied only as a part of a future annexation agreement, its application to these other areas would have negligible results. Therefore,this new contribution is to be applied only to those developments that will occur in that portion of the Far West depicted on the • attached map. The existing "frontage" system used to determine road improvement contributions will remain intact and be applicable to all of the other portions of the Far West. 5. Calculations $ 142,911,000 All road improvement costs over 20 years1 - 111,190,050 . Cost attributable to background traffic, right-of-way dedications, immediate improvements to be borne by a development(s), and other miscellaneous costs' $ 31,720,950 Off-site costs attributable to development related traffic increases' $ 20,492,300 Off-site costs attributable to traffic increases due to residential development2 11,227,950 Off-site costs attributable to traffic increases due to non-residential development2 $ 31,720,950 Total off-site costs to traffic increases due to all forms of development Elgin Far West Planning Area Transportation Improvement Plan,January,2003. 2 See attached analysis of adjusted improvement costs. • 2 • 0. Contribution Proposal 1. Per Dwelling Unit $ 20,492,300 Costs due to residential development-related traffic increases 11,000 Total dwelling units upon full build-out of Traffic Study Planning Area $ 1,862.93 Contribution per dwelling unit (say $1,860) Contribution per dwelling unit 2. Per 1000sq. ft. of Non-Residential Buildings $ 1,227,950 Costs due to non-residential development-related traffic increases 5,100 Total sq. ft. (in thousands)of non-residential buildings upon full build-out of Traffic Study Planning Area $ 2,201 Contribution per 1000sq. ft. (say$2,200) Contribution per 1000sq. ft. D. Comparisons Per Contribution per Contribution per Dwelling 1000 sq. ft. of 1000 sq. ft. of •risdiction Unit Commercial Industrial/Institutional City of Elgin/Kane County $700 $257 $161 Current Interim Contribution (May, 2001) City of Elgin/Kane County $1,860 $2,200* $2,200* Proposed Contribution (January, 2003) Naperville/Will County $2,444 $3,698 $2,400 (December, 2002) Naperville/DuPage County $2,549 $2,673 $2,559 (December, 2002) Hoffman Estates (Dec, 2002) $877 $3,500 $861 * Note: An individual per 1,000 square feet for commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings is not to aixceed the amount resulting from these calculations, or$50,000,whichever is less. Also, certain acreage ong Randall Road, if developed commercially,would not be assessed this fee(see Exhibit 1). 3 •Applicability 1. This contribution schedule and methodology are to be a part of all future annexation agreements wherein they are acknowledged and agreed to be specifically and uniquely attributed to the development proposed as a part of the annexation agreement and that various road improvements to be addressed by the contributions would not otherwise be anticipated absent the annexation of the to- be-developed property. 2. Contribution is to be assessed at the time of building permit. 3. The costs to improve the Far West's roads are equally divided amongst roads under the City's jurisdiction and roads under Kane County's jurisdiction. The City and the County can equally share in the proceeds of these road improvement contributions pending the approval of an intergovernmental agreement. 4. These proposed contributions are needed to fund those regional and off-site improvements identified in the attached chart. These improvements may not be immediately necessary for a proposed development to move forward. However, a specific development will have a proportionate impact on the eventual need for these improvements, and will therefore be assessed a contribution commensurate with that impact. 5. The costs for on-site, adjacent, and/or other appropriate improvements that are immediately necessary IIIfor the road network to accommodate the increase in traffic created by a development are to be borne by the development and are in addition to the road contributions noted herein. Right-of-way donations and other exactions that are customarily associated with the subdivision and development process are also in addition to the road contributions noted herein. 6. Credits may be issued should a developer construct and bear the up-front cost for one or more of the specific road improvements otherwise listed as being improvements upon which contributions are being calculated (see"Developer's Share—Adjusted"column in attached table). The City will also consider adoption of recapture ordinances on behalf of a developer where said developer constructs and bears the upfront cost of a road improvement to benefit his/her and immediately adjacent projects, but where said improvement is not listed in the"Developer's Share—Adjusted"column. Any credits and recaptures are to be specified in each annexation agreement. • 4 4 • 0 • Elgin Trip Generation Summary 2020 Peak-Hour Trip Generation Development Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres Net Square Multiplier Build Out Trip Generation Rate A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Area Feet A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Inbound Outbound Inboound Outbound 0.25 0.75 0.64 0.36 R1 Single Family 459 344 25 3 1033 0 75 0.85 195 580 565 315 R2 Single Family 20 15 3 45 0.75 1 16 10 25 _ 35 20 R3 Single Family 86 64.5 3 194 0.75 1.01 35 110 125 70 R4 Single Family 560 420 3 1260 0.75 0.84 235 710 675 380 _ i R5 Single Family 113 84.75 3 254 0.75 0.98 50 145 160 90 R6 Single Family 412 309 3 _ 927 0.75 0.86 175 520 510 285 R7 Single Family 17 12.75 3 _ 38 0 75 1 18 5 20 30 15 R8 Single Family 222 166.5 3 500 0 75 0.92 95 280 295 165 R9 Single Family 228 171 3 513 0.75 0.91 95 290 300 170 R10 Single Family 36 27 _ 3 81 0.75 1.10 15 45 55 30 R11 Single Family 168 126 3 378 0.75 0.94 70 215 230 130 CZ R12 Single Family 35 26.25 3 79 0.75 1.10 15 45 55 30 C R13 Single Family 61 45 75 3 137 0.75 1.04 25 75 90 50 (1) R14 Single Family 211 158.25 3 475 0 75 0.92 90 265 280 155 R17 Single Family 180 135 3 405 0.75 0,93 75 230 240 135 to B&B sec 1 Single Family 69 0.75 1.11 15 40 50 30 IX B&B sec 2 Single Family 208 0.75 1.00 40 115 135 75 B&B sec 3 Single Family 112 0.75 1.06 20 65 75 45 Wyndam DeerPoint Single Family 289 0.75 0.97 55 165 180 100 Town&Country 1138 205 615 685 415 Pulte 1050 80 145 155 85 Kimball Hill 380 75 190 250 135 Bowes Creek 774 180 440 510 315 0.17 0.83 0.67 0.33 R15 Multi Family 22 16.5 6 99 0.44 0 54 5 35 35 20 R16 Multi Family 112 84 6 504 0 44 0.54 40 185 180 90 Wyndam Deerpoint Multi Family 68 0.44 0,54 5 25 25 10 Total 11007 1905 5575 5925 3360 retail 0.61 0.39 0.48 0.52 _ office 0.89 0.11 0.14 0.86 Retail 25 25 1,089,000 0.25 272 1.03 3.13 170 110 410 445 ` C1 Office 25 25 1,089,000 0.25 272 1.74 1.5 420 50 55 350 Retail 28 28 1,219,680 0.25 305 1.03 3.01 190 120 440 475 E C2 Office 28 28 1,219,680 0.25 305 1.74 15 470 60 65 395 E C3 Retail 47 47 2,047,320 ,' 0.25 512 1.03 2.52 320 205 620 670 Office 47 47 2,047.320 0 25 512 1.74 1.5 795 100 105 660 V McKay Property 650 - 415 290 ' 1050 1260 Total 2,828 2780 935 2745 4255 Warehouse 0.82 0.18 0.24 0.76 MI Manufacturing 0.77 0.23 0.36 0.64 11 Warehouse 80 60 2,613,600 0.4 1,045 0.45 0.51 385 85 130 405 N Manufacturing 35 26 1,143,450 0.4 457 0.73 0.74 255 75 120 215 3 12 Warehouse 41 31 1,339,470 0.4 536 0.45 0.51 200 50 85 210 = Manufacturing 1814 588,060 0.4 235 0.73 0.74 130 40 65 110 Total S 2,274 970 250 380 940 ... D E j t sss• 'Y��+i . !` t 8555. 1V41.i.it_!.. t 9,004 ....•.. l} i „ ip:.+M�'t 10,,,0 17505 • ELGIN FAR WEST PLANNING AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Analysis of Adjusted Developers' Share of Improvement Costs The attached table is derived from the Estimated Cost Matrices (Appendix B) in the Elgin Far West Planning Area Roadway Plan. This table summarizes the cost of recommended road improvements, itemized per intersection and per road segment. The columns in the table are as follows: 1. Intersection/Segment Column: Lists each area of needed improvement as listed in Appendix B and as shown in Figure 10. Both existing intersections and segments(which may need to be upgraded) and proposed intersections and segments (which would need to be constructed) are listed. 2. Non-Residential Share, Per Traffic Study: Indicates the cost of each needed improvement that the traffic study allocates to anticipated non-residential development. Where $0 is indicated, either the study determined that the existing segment or intersection is adequate, or the study determined that any improvements which will be necessary will be due solely to residential and/or background traffic. 3. Non-Residential Share, Adjusted: Repeats the numbers from the previous column, • except where the numbers are adjusted for one of the following reasons: a. The indicated improvements lie outside of the study area (i.e. McDonald Road), and are therefore reduced to zero. b. The improvements will be constructed as part of a future development(e.g. a portion of the "Randall Backage Road" and the"East/West 3"will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the McKay property, as it lies within that development), and are therefore reduced to zero. c. The Corron Road cost figures are reduced by half, as it is anticipated that the developments to the east of Corron Road will pay for half of the improvements, and developments to the west will pay the other half. d. Improvements to Route 20 are reduced by half, as IDOT will be providing the bulk of the funding for any required improvements. 4. Residential Share, Per Traffic Study: Indicates the cost of each needed improvement that the traffic study allocates to anticipated residential development. 5. Residential Share, Adjusted: Repeats the numbers from the previous column, except where the numbers are adjusted for the reasons listed under#3 above. • 6. Reason for Adjustment: Cites the reason for any adjustment to the developers' share of improvement costs. ELGIN FAR WEST PLANNING AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN • Analysis of Adjusted Developers' Share of Improvement Costs Non-Residential Share Residential Share Intersection Per Traffic Study Adjusted Per Traffic Study 1 1 Adjusted Reason for Adjustment Coombs &Russell Ext. $118,900 $118,900 $210,700 $210,700 Coombs&Highland $89,200 $89,200 $160,900 $160,900 Corron& Bowes $12,300 $12,300 $193,1001 $193,100 Corron& McDonald $26,600 $0 $205,900 $0 Intersection not in FWA Crawford &Bowes $0 $0 $0 $0 E/W 3& Randall $77,800 $77,800 $46,700 $46,700 Hopps& Randall Backage $60,100 $60,100 $44,300 $44,300 Hopps& Stevens $0 $0 $0 $0 McDonald& Stevens $0 $0 $49,800 $0 Intersection not in FWA Muirhead & Russell $0 $0 $0 $0 Nester Ext.& Highland $30,400 $30,400 $76,900 $76,900 Nester Ext. &20 Backage $80,700 $80,700 $79,700 $79,700 Nester& East/West 1 $51,200 $51,200 $291,300 $291,300 Nester& Bowes $27,500 $27,500 $317,300 $317,300 Nester&Water $0 $0 $0 $0 Nolan & Bowes $0 $0 $54,500 $54,500 Nort South& East/West 1 $12,500 $12,500 $147,700 $147,700 N uth & East/West 2 $11,500 $11,500 $318,400 $318,400 No outh& Bowes $3,700 $3,700 $272,000 $272,000 'lank&Switzer $21,500 $0 $67,800 $0 Intersection not in FWA Randall Backage& Bowes $18,300 $18,300 $98,1001 $98,100 Randall& Bowes $73,000 $73,000 $42,200 $42,200 Randall&College Green $8,300 $8,300 $4,300 $4,300 Randall& Highland $15,400 $15,400 $25,300 $25,300 Randall& Hopps $69,900 $69,900 $31,800 $31,800 Randall& McDonald $0 $0 $0 $0 Intersection not in FWA Randall&South $25,700 $25,700 $18,700 $18,700 Randall&Weld $18,100 $18,100 $10,800 $10,800 Randall/US 20/Foothill $45,200 $45,200 $51,500 $51,500 Randall/US 20/Weld $42,200 $42,200 $26,500 $26,500 Russell Ext. & US 20 $142,000 $142,000 $92,100 $92,100 Russell& Corron Ext $33,600 $33,600 $155,800 $155,800 Russell& East/West 1 $26,800 $26,800 $76,800 $76,800 Russell& Plank $46,400 $46,400 $143,000 $143,000 JS 20&Switzer $55,300 $0 $98,700 $0 Intersection not in FWA 'Veld&US 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 Jester& US 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 Toombs&US 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 ntersection Subtotals $1,244,1001 $1,140,700 $3,412,6001 $2,990,4001 • Page 1 ELGIN FAR WEST PLANNING AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Analysis of Adjusted Developers' Share of Improvement Costs III Non-Residential Share Residential Share Segment Per Traffic Study Adjusted Per Traffic Study 1 Adjusted Reason for Adjustment Bowes, Corron to Nesler $69,400 $69,400 $877,100 $877,100' Bowes, Crawford to Corron $0 $0 $474,400 $474,400 Bowes, East of Randall $122,600 $122,600 $56,600 $56,600 Bowes, Nesler to Nolan $01 $0 $510,100 $510,100 Bowes, Nolan to N/S Road $01 $0 $914,2001 $914,200 Bowes, N/S to Randall Backage $26,500 $26,500 $1,453,400 $1,453,400 Bowes, Randall Back. to Randall $124,100 $124,100 $163,900 $163,900 Corron Ext, Bowes to Russell $589,400 $294,700 $9,548,200 $4,774,100 Half of Corron Road costs Corron Ext, Plank to US 20 $0 $0 $1,021,800 $510,900 will be apportioned ta. Corron Ext, Russell to Plank $0 $0 $1,411,000 $705,500 properties west of Cotton Corron Ext, US 20 to Highland $557,100 $278,550 $655,400 $327,700 Road East/West 1, Nesler to N/S Road $360,000 $0 $1,170,000 $0 Internal to Development East/West 1, Russell to Nesler $240,400 $0 $1,468,600 $0 Internal to Development East/West 3, Bowes to Randall Backage $4,728,100 $0 $1,611,800 $0 Internal to Development Highland, East of Randall $0 $0 $53,200 $53,200 Highland,West of Randall $124,100 $124,100 $344,000 $344,000 Hopps, East of Randall $581,800 $581,800 $37,800 $37,800 Hopps,West of Randall $1,712,300 $1,712,300 $283,400 $283,400 McDonald, East of Randall $0 $0 $9,700 $0 Segment not in FWA V1cDonald,West of Randall $0 $0 $31,000 $0 Segment not in FWA Ve US 20 Back.to Highland $1,504,800 $1,504,800 $1,915,200 $1,915,200 V S 20 to US 20 Backage $406,500 $406,500 $223,600 $223,600 Vorth/South, Bowes to South $165,700 $0 $3,563,300 $0 Internal to Development Vorth/South, E/W 1 to US 20 $0 $0 $1,828,000 $0 Internal to Development Vorth/South, South to E/W 1 $91,400 $0 $1,158,600 $0 Internal to Development Randall Backage $1,570,900 $0 $669,100 $0 Internal to Development Randall, Bowes to College Green $253,100 $253,100 $114,700 $114,700 Randall, College Green to South $870,300 $870,300 $435,800 $435,800 Randall, East/West 3 to Bowes $153,200 $153,200 $93,100 $93,100 Randall, Hopps to East/West 3 $115,200 $115,200 $135,000 $135,000 Randall,South to Weld $634,500 $634,500 $371,700 $371,700 Randall, US 20/Weld to US 20/Foothill $754,100 $754,100 $583,500 $583,500 Randall, US 20/Foothill to Highland $459,800 $459,800 $668,800 $668,800 Randall,Weld to US 20/Weld $84,500 $84,500 $47,500 $47,500 Russell Ext., Plank to US 20 $84,900 $84,900 $244,900 $244,900 Russell Ext., US 20 to Coombs $528,800 $528,800 $341,300 $341,300 >outh Street, E of Randall $0 $0 $5,000 $0 Internal to Development >outh St. Ext., N/S to South $0 $0 $2,123,400 $0 Internal to Development >outh St. Ext.,Water to N/S $0 $0 $3,036,800 $0 Internal to Development 1S 20,to Russell Ext. $146,000 $73,000 $129,200 $64,600 50% Interagency Discount 15 20,Coombs to 6 lane section $254,200 $127,100 $359,500 $179,750 50% Interagency Discount JS 20, Nesler to Weld $633,200 $316,600 $438,300 $219,150 50% Interagency Discount 1S 20,Russell Ext to Coombs $103,800 $51,900 $24,300 $12,150 50% Interagency Discount 1S 20,Weld to Randall $669,800 $334,900 $729,700 $364,850 50% Interagency Discount 1S20 Backage, Coombs to Nesler $2,658,500 $0 $621,500 $0 Internal to Development ;e t Subtotals $21,379,0001 $10,087,250 $41,957,4001 $17,501,900] it tion Subtotals (From Prey. Pg.) $1,244,100' $1,140,700 $3,412,600 $2,990,400 'otals $22,623,1001 $11,227,950 $45,370,000 $20,492,300 Page 2 Elgin Far West Planning Area I r -- ,_ ' • 2020 Developments 1 it s 'tuna.' PI 1 14176 (*I i r.LItillikhrliriri. ,.., 'i'=;7t,,.„,-,,tt. 1 -rii.,. ..,., i„:„,11! .1; 1 , _ „ Al .. _, 41171 : 44 trir Wyndham Deerpoint / 4.6 . ii u R. ,‘:, , , R.-" Town &Country 0 Ilif 0#441111 (7. . r ' 0 l g R10 Kimball HMI) ' c00atkps R'+ ifiw y ii zfri \ Pulte r\__: F ,tv0% Blirefte 111A B & B turAila /II I : 7P." il Bowes Creek I 11111111171 M# ' Mil - 4 ill 1 KIII ;mil.::... :: ,' +NI a 1S.Ii tif 4: • hi" I , r x 1 / N. '7-s- .f I M IRHEAD • ` / , _______.----1"-----_," r. 2"'n SWiT2ER :U X o � X a. 0 CU D o CT 0 Xe: c /I g lIl co cp it q.t's ...._ SHWOODL sr( cnC NOLAN FQ yc 0 `a Il ill / Oit -+ 1111u.Ail f■F I.? e Tyrrell Rd ` .. (D O z 71 IF ill . fte i su o m -10 1 5 o. ri. CD i: sor IS =ram i 0. CD , /411 ow,. - .,. ,, . .., . 1 ,,,- fa) ayl 4 ill . 0 1iii,ra L4o ' ra, 1 Ill it3 , ,