VII. REGULAR AGENDA    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VIL.A.. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Final Plat Farmersville Market Center (Express Car Wash) Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) Mtip.ha.lameryleicemspvemmenlasenans and minutes/cit Consideration Please be advised P&Z voted to recommend approval,  ycouncil meetings.php  and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote D Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondvote to continue to al later date. A Approve n Disapprove Movei item to another agenda. No motion, no action    DUNAWAY  October 23, 2024 Mr. Ben White, P.E. City of Farmersville 205S. MainSt. Farmersville, Texas 75442 Dated August 2024 Mr. White:  RE: Lot 3R Farmersville Market Center (Express Car Wash) - Final Plat  The aforementioned project has been submitted for approval by the City ofF Farmersville. The Preliminary Plat was approved! by Planning & Zoning on October 17, 2023 and by Council on October 24, 2023. Public infrastructure (water, wastewater, fire lanes) have been installed and af final walkthrough of the project will be held ini the next few The Final Plat has been reviewed according to the ordinances of the City of Farmersville and been found to be compliant. Itis recommended that the Lot 3R Farmersville Market Center Final Plat be approved. Please contact me ify youl have any questions.  weeks.  Sincerely, PE PsRy Jacob Dupuis, Senior Discipline Lead  dunaway. .com    U.S. HIGHWAYNO. 380  Lar  MMEAACTACT  LOT3R FARMERSVILLE MARKET CENTER  Bowman  SPOONER ASSOCIATES    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VII.B. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Final Plat Camden Park Phase 4 Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http:/www. farmersvilletx. comgovemmenlapendas and minutes/cit Consideration Please be advised P&Z made a contingent approval and according and Discussion to Dunnaway the items requested by P&ZI have been resolved.  ycouncil meetings. .php  Action  Motion/secondivote D Approve DA Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondivote to continue to a later date. DA Approve I Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action    DUNAWAY October 23, 2024 Mr. Ben White, P.E. City of Farmersville 205S. MainSt. Farmersville, Texas 75442 RE: Camden Phase 4- Final Plat Dated August 2024 Mr. White:  The aforementioned project has beens submitted for approval by the City of Farmersville. The Preliminary Plat was approved! by Planning & Zoning on July 19,2021 and by Council on. July 23, 2021. Public infrastructure (water, wastewater, fire lanes) have been installed and a final walkthrough of the project was held on October 17, The Final Plat has been reviewed according to the ordinances of the City of Farmersville and ai few minor revisions will need to be completed to ensure itis compliant. The following comments have been passed oni to the  2024.  developer:  Update signature block to correct version Include zoning and utility providers in the Notes section Misspelling of "Farmersville" ini the Owners Certificate Correctly label Collin Parkway and identifyito as a 100' ROW Update Legend of Abbreviations toi include all abbreviations srecommended that the Camden Phase 4Final Plat be approved pending  the above mentionedi items beingrevised. Please contact me if youl have any questions.  Sincerely, PERy Jacob Dupuis, PE Senior Discipline Lead  dunaway. com    Aoh  FINALPLAT PHASEIV Beingi 18.903. Acres situatedinthe William B. Williams Survey Number 952 CityofFarmersville, Collin County, Texas  WINDROSE CAMDEN PARK ADDITION  w    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VIL.C.. Subject To From Date Attachment(s) Documents  Update Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plan and  Impact Fee Collection Rates Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) Mp/hwamerwlekcmgosempenlagendis: and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote D Approve DA Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondivote to continue to a later date. D Approve D Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action      Farmersville  CITY OF FARMERSVILLE  Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study OCTOBER 2024  DUNAWAY  1181 McKinney Street I POBox 606 II Farmersville, Texas 75442 972.784.77771 dunaway.com Firm Registration No: F-1114    Contents 1. Executive Summary. 1.1. Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 1.2. Impact Fee Calculations. 1.3. Recommendation: to Council.. . Chapter 395 Requirements. 2.1. Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. 2.2. Public Hearings. 2.3. Impact Fee. 2.3.1. Capital Improvement Plan. 2.3.2. Impact) Fee Calculation. 2.4. Administration of] Impact Fees 3. Land Use Assumptions. 3.1. Service Areas. 3.2. Forecasted Growth.. Water Impact Fee. 4.1. Capital) Improvement Plan. 4.2. Maximum Allowable Impact] Fee. Wastewater Impact Fee 5.1. Capital Improvement Plan. 5.2. Maximum Allowable Impact Fee. Roadway Impact Fee. 6.1. Introduction. 6.2. Land Use Assumptions 6.3. Roadway Capital Improvement Plan. 6.4. Roadway Impact Fee Methodology. 6.4.1. Transportation Demand Factor. 6.4.2. Additional Capacity Demanded by New Development. 6.4.3. Additional Capacity Supplied by CIP. 6.5. Impact Fee Calculation.. 6.6. Roadway Conclusions.    7. Conclusion  Appendix Appendix: Capital Improvement Plans    1. Executive Summary  The City ofFarmersville (City) has completed an] Impact Fee Study (Study) in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code (Chapter 395). The Study included the completion ofland use assumptions and capital improvement plans (CIP) for water, wastewater, and roadway projects. The CIP reflects the latest information about future projects needed tos serve future growth within the next teny years, 2024- 2034. The impact fee was calculated based ont the CIP and forecasted future growth." This report establishes ther maximum allowable impact fee applicable tot the City of Farmersville service areas. 11. Capital Improvement Advisory Committee The City Council of Farmersville has appointed the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) members, as required by Chapter 395. The advisory committee membersi include. Jim Foy, Michaell Hesse, John Cooper, Sue Williams, andI Leaca Caspari. The chairperson oft the CIACis. Jim Foy. The CIAC has met to discuss the impact fee process, land use assumptions, capital improvement plans and impact fee calculations. The group providedi input based on their knowledge ofg growth and development ini the This report has been developed withi input from the CIAC. Ther recommendation! below ist thec culmination ofthe  City.  meetings with the CIAC and reflects the group consensus. 12 Impact Fee Calculations  Asaresult oft thes study, ther maximum allowablei impact fee was calculated. Chapter 395 allows for eitherarate credit by other payment methods for utility capital by a new customer ora reduction ofthe unit capital costs by 50% to calculate the maximum allowable fee. The maximum fee is the maximum fee the City may lawfully charge based on given capital improvements, existing capacity, and thes selected rate credit. City Council does not! have to select ther maximum rate andi may setf feesl lower thant ther maximum allowablet tob bea assessed. The CIAC: reviewed the overall water and wastewater maximum fees. Ther maximum water feei is based ont the total amount ofv water treatment, pumping, storage, andt transmission classifications. The maximum wastewater feei is based on thet total amount of wastewater treatment, pumping, collection, and interceptor classifications. The City may add ors subtract categoriest toreflect thec developer's contribution by utilizingt these classifications. Local distribution and collection lines that are contributed are not included int thei impact fee calculations. In addition, the CIACI reviewed the roadway impact fee approach, assumptions, and maximum fees by land use classification. The projected amount of future development was reviewed, and the CIAC believes these are realistic projections based long growtht trends. The CIP projects includedi int thes study were reviewed ando discussed asb benefiting the regional and city-widet transportation needs. From the CIP, projects noti included int thei impact fee calculation weref forl local roads (interiort to neighborhoods), equipment, ands sidewalks (not associated with roadway upgradeslexpansions). By applyingt the 50%1 reduction to thee eligible CIP, projects, under provisions of    Chapter 395, and then dividing the project costs amongst anticipated future development the maximum This report provides the assumptions used to calculate thei impact fees." The design assumptions, service demands, and planning costs were obtained in coordination witht the City. 13 Recommendation to Council  assessable roadway impact fees were developed.  The CIAC recommends thatt the Council consider adopting upt to ther maximum allowablei impactf fees for water, wastewater, andi roadways. However, they also recommend that the amount assessed be credited by 50% ofthe maximum allowable: fees for water and sewer per the recommendations oft this report. The CIAC further recommends actual water, sewer and roadway impact fees asi indicated int the body oft this  report andi in1 thec conclusion oft this report. The amounts byi impactf fee type ares showni in Table 1.  Table 1: Impact) Fee Recommendation 2024 CIP Projects Total Allowable Fee With 50% Credit $42.051,133.00 $18.672.79 $86,167.913.00 $38,262.84 Maximum Allowable Projects 2024 CIP ProjectsT Total (50%ofCIP) Maximum Allowable Fee Basis $91,565,626.00 $45.782.813.00 $91,565,626.00 $45.782.813.00  Maximum Maximum Allowable Fee  ImpactFee Category WATER SEWER  Basis $9,336.40 PerLUE $19,131.42 PerLUE  Impact Fee Category Roadway Single- family Roadway- Mulfi-family  $23,019.00 Pers Single-tamiyLUE $11,049.00 PerMull-famiyLUE    2. Chapter 395 Requirements  Thei impactf feej process in Texasi is governed by Chapter 395 ofthe" Texas Local Government Code. Chapter 395 dictates howi impactf fees are calculated andt the process that must bef followed. Thej process starts with creating aCapital Improvements. Advisory Committee (CIAC) and thec development tofLandl Use Assumptions, al 10-year Capital Improvement: Plan, and finally, the calculation oft thei impact Fee. The CIAC mustr review and provide comments on the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plan, andi impactf feecalculation. 21. Capital Improvement Advisory Committee The CIAC should bec comprised ofatl least five members, with 40 percent oft ther membership being from ther real estate, development, or building industries. As stated in Section 395.058(c), the advisory committee serves in 1) Advise anda assist thep political subdivisioni in adopting land use assumptions; ) Review the capitali improvements plan andi file written comments; 3) Monitor and evaluate thei implementation oft the capital improvements plan; 4) File semiannual reports concerning the progress oft the capital improvements plan and report tot the political subdivision: any perceivedi inequities ini implementing the planori imposingt thei impactf fee; and Advise thep political subdivision oft ther need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital The City shall make available to the CIAC any professional reports concerning developing andi implementing the capital improvements plan. For the ongoing requirements oft the CIAC, the City should adopt procedural The CIAC must document its recommendations and considerations about the land use assumptions, capital improvement plan, andi impact fee calculation. This report serves as the documentation of the CIAC.  an advisory capacity andi is establishedto:  improvements plan, andi impactf fee.  rules for the CIACt tof followi in carrying outi its duties.  22 Public Hearings  The City must hold two public hearingst to establish a new impact fee. The public hearings arel held after the CIAC's input is provided about the land use assumptions, CIP, and thei impact fee calculation. The first public hearing considers thel land use assumptions and capitali improvement plan. The public hearingi is held atl least 30 daysa aftert ther noticei is publishedi inone or morel local newspapersi ine eachcounty inw whicht theCityi islocated. The second public hearing considers the impact fee calculation andi must also bea atl least 30 days after publishing a  notice. 23 Impact Fee  The adopted impact fee may bei imposed within the city limits and, except for roadway impact fees, within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Impact fees can be used to fund the projects identified int the 10-year CIP, specifically on construction, surveying ande engineering fees, land acquisition costs, and fees paidt toa aqualified    engineer orf financial consultant. The established CIP shouldi include projects needed to serve future growth. In addition, impact fees can pay fori interest and financing costs related tot thei issuance of bonds tof fund projects identifiedi inthe 10-year CIP. Impact fees can only bet usedf fort thec cost off facilitiesi included inthe 10-year CIPS. Any facilityi improvements that are notr required to servef future growth arei ineligible.  2.3.1. Capital Improvement Plan  The CIP should include a list of the projects and the costs to upgrade and expand existing facilities to serve future growth. To establish the CIP, an analysis of thes system's total capacity was completed to determine the current level of usage and the future usage needed to serve the growth in the 10 years. The projected growth was determined' based on thel land uses of the service area. The total number ofs service units for the 10 years  was established based ont thes system'sf future growth. 2.3.2. Impact Fee Calculation  Oncc the CIPis established, thec cost per service uniti is calculated by dividing thec cost ofcapital projects byt the number ofs service units. Oncet thec cost pers serviceu unitis determined, arated creditr must bea applied. Ther rate credit can be based lon 50% oft the cost pers service unit or the credit application based ont the portion of utility service revenues generated by news service units during the 10years. Fort the study, 50% credit was applied.  2.4. Administration of ImpactFees  Oncei thei impact feei is adopted, the City muste establishap process fort trackingt thei impactf fees received andi used. Impact Fees may only be used on eligible projects identified in the capital improvement plan. Therefore, the funding sources fort those projects should bet tracked and documented. Ifi impact fees are used on debt service, the debt service that is paid must be for eligible impact fee-related projects only. This information should be provided tot the CIAC ins semiannual reportst thats should also bej providedt tot the City Council after review byt the  CIAC.    3. Land Use Assumptions  The land use assumptions were based on the City of Farmersville's current Comprehensive Plan and have been revised as ofFebruary 2021 ass showni in] Figure 1. TheCity! hase experienceds significant growthinrecent; years, and development activities such as pre-applications, zoning, platting and construction have increased. The CIAC recommends approvalofthese: assumptionsi int thep preparation of developing the Water, Wastewater, andI Roadway  Impact] Fees.  Figure 1: Land Use  Farmersville Future Land Use Plan    31. Service Areas  Impactf fees cand only be collected from connection within thes service areas defined int this report. Per Chapter 395, the water and wastewater service areas differ from the roadway service areas. The water and wastewater service areas ares showni in Figure 2. Thiss service areai includes the extraterritorial, jurisdiction oft theCity.  Figure? 2: Water and Wastewater Impact! Fee Service Area  EDUNAWAY    Chapter 395 defines roadway service area as the six-mile area within political subdivision that the capital improvements plan will serve. Since all ofthe City is within a six-r -mile radius, single service area is usedi in the Study to comprise the area where the roadway impact fee will be applied to new development. Figure3 3 shows a map of the city's municipal boundaries along with the roadway impact fee service area. As demonstrated lont ther map, the primary areas contiguous to thec central part ofthe City arei included int the Service Area. Should growth in these areas require significant investment in road widening, extensions, or other upgrades, additional roadwayi impact fees service areass should bec considered. Figure3 shows thes service area for  ther roadway impact fees.  Figure 3: Roadway Impact Fee Service Area  DUNAWAY    32. Forecasted Growth  The population for the City is 5,439 people with a projected population of 11,697 in 2034. The Population Projection updates demonstrates growth rates of 10.0% from 2026 2029 and 6.0% from 2029- - 2034. These population projections were usedi to develop the future growth for the water, wastewater, and roadway impact  fees.    4. Water Impact Fee  The water impactf feey was calculated using the costs oft the projects int the 10-year CIP. The costs were divided based ont the amount ofc capacity used inther next 10years and dividedbyt ther number ofLiving Unit Equivalents (LUE). One LUE represents one single-family household residence. The LUE conversion factors are based on standard American' Water Works Association (AWWA)meter equivalent ratios. Ther number OfLUEsi increases based ont the meter size. Asi indicated in' Table 2, the City currently has aj population of 5,439. Based on 2.78 persons per household and the LUE conversion: factor, there are 1,956 LUES in the City. Table 2 shows the population and the converted number of LUEs for the residential class. Table 3 shows the conversion for the meter sizes. For the residential class, the 5/8"x3/4" meter isa standard meter for all single-family residential  customers. Therefore, itis considered representative of1 LUE.  Table 2: Living Unit Equivalents- Residential  Meter Size 5/8'x3/4"  Equivalent Factors Population Number OfLUES  1.00 Table 3:1 Meter Equivalents Equivalent Factors 1.00 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 80.00  5,439  1,956  Meter Size 5/8'x3/4" 1.5"  Based on the population projection and as shown in' Table 4, itis estimated that 2,252 LUES will be added to  thes system int ther next 105 years.  Table 4: Forecasted' Water Growth Population 5,439 11,697 6,258  Year 2024 2034 Growth  LUES 1,956 4,208 2,252    41. Capital Improvement Plan Based on the projected growth and capacity needs, impactf fee-eligible projects were developed fort the 10-year study period. The CIPi includes future projects that willl ber required tor meetf future capacity needs. These projects were developed based on existinga and future demands. Table 5 shows the Water CIP. The Water CIP Map can! bet foundi in Appendix A. Thet total CIPi investment equals $42,052,133.00to bes spent overt the nextt teny years.  Table! 5: Water Capital) Improvement Plan Water Capital Projects 4700 LF $ 1,103,850.00 $ 176,616.00 $ 1,280,466.00 4300 LF $ 1,042,800.00 $ 166,848.00 $ 1,209,648.00  No. Location Length Unit Construction Cost Design Cost TotalCost 3_SH78- MaintoFM 2756 15000 LF $ 2,969,945.00 $ 475,191.00 $ 3,445,136.00 4 Merit-St.-FM 2194t0ET 8500 LF 1,808,345.00 $ 289,335.00 $ 2,097,680.00 5_CR4B-NIou5380 7400 LF $ 2,035,825.00 $ 325,732.00 $ 2,361,557.00 6_US380-SH7B10 Beene 6100 LF $ 1,671,010.00 $ 267,361.00 $ 1,938,371.00 7CR6 607-US3 380- -SH78 7200 LF $ 1,506,147.00 $ 240,983.00 $ 1.747,130.00 9 Farmersville Pkwy 3400 LF $ 738,705.00 $ 118,192.00 $ 856,897.00 10 Main&FM 2194t0N Merit 6900 LF $ 1,195,480.00 $ 191,276.00 $ 1,386.756.00 11 CR610, CR567,CR560 6400 LF $ 2,977,205.00 $ 476,352.00 $ 3,453,557.00 12 CR5 5658CR613 11300 LF $ 2,172,555.00 $ 347,608.00 $ 2,520,163.00 13 Booster Pump- WaterSt 2 EA $ 947,100.00 $ 197,065.00 $ 1,144,165.00 14 Take- Point &ET- CR617 LS $ 10,355,125.00 $1,460,140.00 $11.815,265.00  1 SH78South 2 SH78North  US3 380V West  5100 LF $ 1,059,657.00 $ 169,545.00 $ 1,229,202.00  15 ET-MeritSt Notes Associated  EA $ 4,937,625.00 $ 627,515.00 $ 5,565,140.00  $42,051,133.00  1.Construction Costs IncludeE Estimated Quantities of Waterlinec and Facility Constructiony with 2.Design Costl Includes Engineering. Survey, Contract& Construction/ Administration, andi Inspection Services  and1 10% Contingency  42 Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Chapter 395 allows fort two ways to pay for capitali improvements: An up-fronti impact feet that allows the new customers to buy into the system, and Monthly utility fees that support the debt service oft thes system. The cost per LUE must first be calculated to determine thei impact fee. Inl Table 6, the cost per LUE is shown. Oncet this calculationi is completed, Chapter 395a allows theL utility toeither usea as 50% credit of thet total projected cost ofcapitalf fora allp projects or apply acrediti for rate payments. Theu utility mays select ther maximum feea amount after calculating these credits. Thei maximum allowablei impactf feei fort thiss study was calculated! by applyingt the 50% credit cost per LUE. The CIACI recommended adoption of upt tot ther maximum allowable impactf fee with  the 50% credit.    11  Table 6: Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Calculation  Maximum Allowable Fee Recommended CostPer LUE With 50% Credit Assessment $9,336.40  Facility Water Projects  $18,672.79  Thet total maximum allowable impacti fee per LUE for wateri is $9,336.40 with 50% credit. The City may apply ani impact fee credit to developers whor may choose to install and contribute to facilities identifiedi int the CIP. The feci in' Table 6aret based on] LUES. When thei impact fees are assessed, they will be calculated based on the meter size needed for the connection. Table 7 shows thei impact fees for a 5/8"x3/4" meter, the standard size water meter foras single-family residential connection. Table" 7a alsos shows thee equivalent factors anda associated  impactf fee amounts based on larger water meter sizes.  Table' 7: Single Family Residential' Water Impact) Fees by Meter Size  Maximum Water Total Maximum  Water Meter Size Equivalent Factors Fee PerLUE Water Fee  5/8'x3/4" 1.5" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8"  1.00 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 80.00  $9,336.40 $9,336.40 $9,336.40 $23,341.00 $9,336.40 $46,682.00 $9,336.40 $74,691.20 $9,336.40 $149,382.40 $9,336.40 $233,410.00 $9,336.40 $466,820.00 $9,336.40 $746,912.00    12  5. Wastewater Impact Fee  Like water, the wastewater impact fees are calculated based on the 10-year capital improvement plan and the forecasted growth of the wastewater system. Currently, the wastewater system serves 1,956 connections. The wastewater connections arer noto converted tol LUEs as wastewater connections dor not! have meters. Based on thep population projectiona and as showni in' Table 8itise estimated that 2,2521 LUES willb bea addedt tothe  system in thel 10-year period.  Table 8: Forecasted Wastewater Connection Growth Population 5,439 11,697 6,258  Year 2024 2034 Growth  LUEs 1,956 4,208 2,252  51. Capital improvement Plan existing andi future demands to meet capacity needs.  Based ont the projected growth and capacity needs, impactf fee-eligible projects were developed for thet ten-year study period: and comprise the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIPH has been developed based on Table 9 shows the Wastewater CIP. The Wastewater CIPI Map can bef found in Appendix A. Thet total CIPi investment equals $86,167,913.00 tol bes spent over ther next 10 years.    Table! 9: Wastewater Capital) Improvement Plan Sewer Capltal Projects 3500 LF 999,460.00 $ 163,413.00 $ 1,162,873.00 4900 LF 940,775.00 $ 154,024.00 $ 1,094,799.00 4500 LF 913,550.00 149,668.00 $ 1,063,218.00 2300 LF 411,400.00 69,324.00 $ 480,724.00 6800 LF 1,497,375.00 $ 243,080.00 $ 1,740,455.00 2500 LF 611,050.00 $ 101,268.00 $ 712,318.00 1900 LF 140,800.00 $ 22,528.00 $ 163,328.00 3500 LF 315,425.00 $ 50,468.00 $ 365,893.00 2000 LF 205,425.00 $ 32,868.00 $ 238,293.00 3900 LF 257,400.00 $ 41,184.00 $ 298,584.00 EA 13,310,000.00 1,825,300.00 $15,135,300.00 EA 13,310,000.00 $1,825,300.00 $15,135,300.00 13,310,000.00 1,825,300.00 $15,135,300.00 EA 14,960,000.00 $2,039,800.00 $16,999,800.00  No. Location Length Unit Construction Cost DesignCost TotalCost  Sycamorest US380- South WWIP- South LocustSt  Orange SHLS- South 2800 LF 399,300.00 $ 67,388.00 $ 466,688.00 6 US3 380/Northl Lake- 2900 LF 415,400.00 70,324.00 485,724.00 7CR6 648- South 3800 LF 574,750.00 $ 95,460.00 $ 670,210.00 9 CR6 609- South 11100 LF 2,272,985.00 $ 367,177.00 $ 2,640,162.00 10 CR6 605- South 6200 LF 1,331,605.00 $ 216,556.00 $ 1,548,161.00 12 US380t0CR6 696 15200 LF 4,108,555.00 $ 660,868.00 $ 4,769,423.00 13 CR613t0 MeritSt 17000 LF 4,631,880.00 $ 744,600.00 $ 5,376,480.00 15 CR5578CR606 6500 LF 418,000.00 $ 66,880.00 484,880.00  8CR5 558- South 11 SH78- West 14 MeritSt 16 US380 17 CR557 18 SH78East 19 WWIPCR613 20 WWPCR696 21 WWIPCR550 22 WWIPE ElmSt Notes  $86,167,913.00  1.Construction Costsl IncludeE Quantities ofSewer Lines andF Facilityo Constructiony with Associated Appurtenances and 10% Contingency 2.Design Costl Includes Engineering, Survey, Contract & Construction Administration, andl Inspection Services    52. Maximum Allowable Impact Fee  In7 Table 10, thec cost perl LUEi is shown for the proposed' Wastewater Capital Improvements. Oncet this calculation iscompleted, Chapter 395 allows the utility to either usea a 50% credit ofthet total projected cost ofc capital fora all projects or apply acredit for rate payments. The utility may select the maximum fee amount after these credits have been calculated. For this study, ther maximum allowablei impact fee was calculated by applyingt the 50% credit cost per LUE. The CIAC recommended adoption ofu up to ther maximum allowable impact fee with the  50% credit.  Table 10: Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Calculation  Maximum Allowable Fee Recommended CostF PerLUE With 50% Credit Assessment $19,131.42  Facilily Sewer Projects  $38,262.84  Thet totalr maximum allowablei impactf feef for wastewateri is$19,131.42 witht the 50% credit. The City may apply ani impact fee credit to developers who may choose toi install and contribute to facilities identified intl the CIP. The feei in1 Table 10are based on) LUES. When thei impact fees are assessed, they will bec calculated based on the water meter size providing service tot the location for the connection. Table 11 shows the impact fees fora 5/8"x3/4" meter, the standard size water meter fora single-family residential connection. Table 11 also shows thee equivalent factors anda associated impact feea amounts based onl larger water meters sizes. Table 11: Single Family Residential Sewer Impact] Fees by Meter Size Water Meter Size Equivalent Factors Fee Per LUE Water Fee  Maximum Sewer Total Maximum  5/8'x3/4" 1" 1.5"  1.00 2.50 5.00 8.00 16.00 25.00 50.00 80.00  $19,131.42 $19,131.42 $19,131.42 $47,828.55 $19,131.42 $95,657.10 $19,131.42 $153,051.36 $19,131.42 $306,102.72 $19,131.42 $478,285.50 $19,131.42 $956,571.00 $19,131.42 $1,530,513.60)    15  6. Roadway Impact Fee 61. Introduction  This section will discuss the approach and analysis to calculate a Roadway Impact Fee to determine the maximum allowable fee that can bei implemented per Chapter 395. A roadway impact feei is the fee appliedt to development andi is used toi increase the capacity ofr roadway infrastructure to support: additional traffic created by new development. The City does not currently assess roadway impact fees. Several surrounding communities, andi many communities throughout the State of Texas, doc charge roadway impactf fees so theCity is studying the feasibility and potential feel levels necessary to maintain appropriate road capacities as growth  continues.  62. Land Use Assumptions  Chapter 395 states roadway impact fees should use reasonable projections of growth to determine roadway impact fees. Land use assumplions provide thel basis for residential and non-residential growth prujectiuntube used in impact fee development. Int this Study, current population data was acquired from the U.S. Census and the City. The existing property data was obtained from the Collin County Appraisal District and the City's existing: adoptedI Land Usel Map and Comprehensive Plan. As discussed in Section 3, future population and development trends were obtained from the US Census, the City andt the City's Comprehensive Plan update engineer (Kimley-Horn). These rates were usedt to forecast thei increasei inp populationa and residential units. Table 12illustratest thee existing characteristics: andf forecasted growthu usedi inthis Study.    Table 12: Projected Residential Growth POPULATIONPROJECTIONS CITY OF FARMERSVILE,TEXAS  Moderate Growth High Growth TWDB  Year Source Population % Change Scenario Scenario (Forecasted)  2000 Us Census 2725 2010 US Census 3150 1.5%/Year 2020 COF 4561 4.48%/Year 2024 COF 5439 (Assumed) 5439 5439 2025 COF 5970 9.7% (Assumed) 6255 6527 2026 COF 6567 10% (Assumed) 7005 7506 2027 COF 7224 10% (Assumed) 7846 8632 2028 COF 7946 10% (Assumed) 8788 9926 2029 COF 8741 10% (Assumed) 9842 11415 2030 KHA 9265 6% (Assumed) 10531 12329 5700 2031 KHA 9821 6% (Assumed) 11268 13315 2032 KHA 10410 6% (Assumed) 12170 14513 2033 KHA 11035 6% (Assumed) 13143 15819 2034 KHA 11697 6% (Assumed) 14326 17401 2035 KHA 12399 6% (Assumed) 15616 19142 2036 KHA 13143 69(Assumed) 17177 22013 2037 KHA 13931 69(Assumed) 18895 25315 2038 KHA 14767 6% (Assumed) 20784 29112 2039 KHA 15653 6% (Assumed) 22863 33479 2040 KHA 16592 6% (Assumed) 25149 38501 14074  COF- City ofFarmersville KH- Kimley-Horn    17  63 Roadway Capital Improvement Plan  Ar roadway capital improvement plan (CIP) between Fiscal Years (FYs) 2024 2034 was developed. This CIP identified $129.61 million in various roadway projects within the Service Area for local, collector, and arterial roadways and otheri improvements. The CIPincludes estimatedi inflationary impactst to projectst that occuri inthe outer years of thei forecast. After discussions with City staff, thei individual projects for local roads (interiort to neighborhoods), equipment, and sidewalks (not associated with roadway upgrades'expansions) were excluded from the analysis, asit was determined these would not provide benefit to regional or City-wide transportation needs or were not eligible fori inclusion ini impact fee calculations per the Impact Fee Statute. The remaining eligible roadway projects! have at total cost of$91,565,626.00; however, Chapter 395 only allows for upto 50% ofCIP costs tob be collected through impactf fees. Therefore, only half oft these costs, or $45,782,813.00, willb be utilized to calculate ther maximum roadway impact fee. The eligible CIP projects and their associated costs are  shown below in Table 13.  Table 13: Roadway Capital) Improvement Plan (See' Tablel Next Page)    Roadway Capital Projects Arterlal- 100 Wide StreetName LengthUnit ConstructionCost DesignCost TotalCost Parkway 3165 LF 4,606,377.40 $ 561,165.00 $ 5,167,542.40 Hamiltonst 7400 10,770,034,00 $1,258,703.74 12,028,737.74 Colle et LengthUnit  $17,196,280.14 DesignCost TotdlCost 573,308.78 $ 5,448,843.18 3,828,916.83 3,828,916.83 4,417,980.96 52.40 2,798,054.61 8,099,631.76 10,014,611.20 $11,192,218.43 5.270,848.00 $ 619,793.28 $ 5,890,641.28 $74,369,346.16 LocalStreet- 50'WIde Length Unit DesignCost TotalCost 791,677.68 4,026,552.20 480,920.74 900,676.15 134,594.66 1,035,270.81 529,809.50 79,173.33 608,982.83 900,676.15 1,035.270.81 1,147,001.00 1,267,737.94 529,809.50 608,982.83 1,642,409. 1,854,998.58 1,112,59 1,267.737.94 1.960,295.15 2,214,030.57 953,657. 1,096,169.09 974,372.53 ,589 1795,159.92 476,828 552,852.83 688 791,677.68 791,677.68 2,119,238.00 2,372,354.18 1,271,542.80 177,300.56 1,448,843.36 953,657.10 42,511.99 1,096,169.09 1,271,542.80 177,300.56 1,448,843.36 1,483,466.60 1,690,317.26 476,828.55 423,847.60 491,424.74 476,828.55 76,024.28 552,852.83 476,828.55 76,024.28 552,852.83 423,847.60 67,577.14 491,424.74 211,923.80 33,788.57 245,712.37 105,961.90 $ 16,894.29 122,856.19 ROW Prepardtion, ExistingPavingR Underground Drainagec Conveyance, Signages lighting. and Survey, Contracts Construclion Adminisirolion, Considered aPincipal4 4lane Divided and Collector Streels Impact Eligible, Locals Sireelso arenot.  GaddySt Pendletonst MeritSt  $:38,076,612.49 Services  Desig    64 Roadway Impact Feel Methodology  The impact of new development on the roadway network, or demand for facility capacity, is defined and measured int terms oft the number of estimated vehicle-miles traveled for each unit of new development. The term usedi in this Report and Chapter 395 is" "service unit". Int the context of thet roadway impact fee, the service uniti is defined last the vehicle-mile, ast this ist thet unit usedt to quantify the City's roadway supply: ando demand. In ordert tomeet thea additional demands placed lont ther roadway network by the service unitsf fromi new development, the City hasi identified a variety ofr necessary projects. The cost of providing these projects, as shown in' Table 13,i is the basis for the roadway impacti fee asf further describedt throughout thiss section. 6.4.1. Transportation Demand Factor  Toc determine the maximum allowable roadway impact fee pers service unit, thea additional demand attributable to new development should bec calculated. The demandi isa function oft two variables: number oft trips generated by land use average trip length  Each of these factors will bec discussed andt then used to convert the development forecast provided on Table 12 intot thea appropriate service units for determination of ther roadway impact fees.  641.1 Trip Generation  The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is nationally recognized andi industry accepted resource that publishes informationi related to trips generation by land use. Trip generation isai measure ofh how many tripsa certain land useg generates andi ist based ont thep premise thatt thez activity at each landi use uniquely determines the amount oftravel to andf from thatl location. Each oft thet trip generationr rates associated withap particular land use isa adjusted toa per unit basis. For residential land uses, the trip generation rate is per dwelling unit andi fort the non-residential uses which arer notincludedi inthis Study, thet tripg generationi rateisper 1,000b building square feet. Duetothec current growth chanactersissofteciy, only Single-f -family andN Multi- -family Residential Land Uses arel being considered. Additionally, itiss standard practice to reduce thet trip generation rate by aone-way trip factor since impact fees geto chargedt tob both origin and destination ends oftrips. Therefore, to prevent double countingt trips, a0.5 factor is applied to all land use trip generation rates. Further, the pass-by trip factor should also be considered. Pass-by trips are defined as intermediate stops with not trip diversion while ont the way toa primary destination. The retail land use tends to attract a portion of its trips from vehicles already ont the roadway network. As pass-by trips are already ont ther roadway network, they should be excluded fromt the calculationof impact fees. The mosto current ITE Trip Generation Manual 11"edition and the Trip Generation Handbook 31d edition were relied upon for the various trip rate and pass-by factors, and by extension, the adjusted trip  generation rate for each land use, as showni in' Table 14.    Table 14: PMI Peak Hour Trip Generationl by Land Use  ITE Land Use  TripGen One-Way Pass By Adj. Trip Adj. Trip  Code (Consol.) Impact Unit Ratell) TripFactor Factor [2) Factor Gen Rate  b  d=bx(l- e=axd ç) 50% 0.50 50% 0.29 50% 0.40 50% 1.69  Residential Residential Industrial/ Commercial 820 Retail  210 (Single family) Dwelling! Units 0.99 50% 220 (Multi-family) Dwelling Units 0.57 50% 110 Warehousing 1,000SqFL 0.80 50% 710 (General Office) 1,000SqFt 3.37 50% [ Peak PMH Hourlyt tripr ratef fromI ITEN Manual 11*Edition. [21 Pass-byt tripr ratef from ITEF Handhonk 3rEditinn. 6412 Average' Trip Length length fort the City is2 2.0miles. 6413 Transportation Demand Factor  1,000SqFt 4.09 50% 34% 33% 1.35  Ther next piece of determining thet transportation demand factor ist the average trip length ina Service Area. The average tripl length is defined as the average distancei traveledi in the Service Area for each trip. Thea averaget trip  By applyingt the Adjusted Trip Rate calculatedi lin Table 14 above with thea average tripl length, thet transportation demand factori is developed for each land use. The transportation demand factor represents the unique demand each land usel has ont roadways. After adjustingt thet trip generation rate byt the one- -way and pass-by factors, itis multiplied by the average trip length to calculate thet transportation demand factor fore eachl land use, ass shown in7 Table 15. This value willl be used tod determine thet neededi increase iny vehicle miles for future development.  Table 15: Transportation Demand Factor by Land Use  ITECode Land Use( (Consolidated) Adj. Trip Gen Rate Avg. Trip Length Demand Factor  exf 1.00 0.48  210 Residential (Singlei family) 220 Residential (Multi-family)  0.50 0.29  2.00 2.00    6.4.2. Additional Capacity Demanded by New Development Each land use creates a unique impact ont the roadways; therefore, the transportation demand factors for each land use are used to ascertain the additional capacity demanded by new development. By multiplying the increase in number of development units for each! land use by the respective transportation demand factor, the additional vehicle miles demanded peri impact uniti is determined." This calculationi is shown below in' Table 16. Table 16: Vehicle Miles of Demand based on 10-Year Growth Projection  Increasei in Units Demandl Factor Changein Total [1) (Miles) [2) Vehicle Miles  Description Residential Singlef family Multi-family AIIR Residential AdditionalCapacity Attributable to Growth [ From Table 12. [2] From Tablel 15.  axb 1,746 1.00 1,746 506 0.48 242.88 1,988.88 1,988.88  Ass shownont thet table: above, new development over the 10-year periodisf forecastedi tog generate 1,988.88v vehicle miles of demand ont the City's roadways. In order to accommodate this additional demand, the City identified several projects, as outlined int ther roadway CIP, that will add lanes and other improvements tot ther roadwaysto Information ont ther number of lanes, total length ofe each lane, andp peak hour trips or capacity oft thee existing: and expanded roadways for each eligible CIP project werei identified. Using these capacity values, coupled with information ont thel length ofther roadway! being improveda andt ther number of lanes being added, thet total amount of vehicle miles that will be added by all eligible projects can be determined. These calculations are shown  supply additional capacity. 6.4.3. Additional Capacity Supplied by CIP  below in7 Table 17.  Table 17: Additional Lane Miles Added by Roadway CIP Length Existing Future Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Additional Project Name (mi) #Lanes #Lanes Capacity Capacity Lanel Miles Lane Miles Lane Miles  d  f=axbxd g=axcxe h-g-f  Arterial Collector Total  2.00 2  290 800 1,160 2,320 1,160  9.56 2 2 290 400 5,544.8 5,544.8 0  6,704.8 7,864.8 1,160    Ass shown ont thet table above, the CIP projects identified will provide ana additional 1,1601 laner miles ofcapacity, whichi is less than thea additional demand forecasted of1 1,988.881 lane miles. 65. Impact Fee Calculation  Comparing the capacity required by new growth with the additional capacity supplied by eligible CIP projects provides a ratio for determining what amount of project costs can be included in the roadway impact fee calculation. Int this case, dividing 1,988.88by 1,160isa approximately 171 percent; therefore, since new demand will utilize all capacity supplied by the CIP, the City can recover 100 percent of eligible project costs. The allocated amount of roadway project costs, of the total project costs of $45,782,813.00 from Table 18, is $45,782,813.00 (rounded tot ther nearest $1,000i increment). This amount willl be recovered throught ther roadway  impact feei from future development.  Table 18: Fee Calculation per Service Unit (VM)  Description Total Eligible Pruject Cusis[1) VM Addedby Projects 12) VMf fromI Development [3] VMI Demands Vs. Capacity Provided (max of 100%) Allocated ProjectCosts Sper VM [ From Table 13. [2J From Table 17. [3J From Table 16.  $45,782,813.00 1,160 1,988.88 100% $45,782,813.00 $23,019.39  Tocalculate thef feep pers service unit (per vehicle mile), the $45,782,813.001 millionist then divided byt ther number oft total vehicle miles ofr new demand, 1,988.8 .88, resultingi in $23,019.39 per vehicle mile. Finally, the fee per vehicle mile must be multiplied by each land uses' specific transportation demand factor to calculate the maximum assessable impact fee for each land uset type, ass showni in Table 19.  Table 19: Maximum Assessable Fee per Demand Unit Maximum Assessable Transportation Maximum Assessable Feeper Vehicle! Mile Demand] Factor Feepers Service Unit  Land Use Residential Single family Multi-family  b 1.00 0.48  axb $23,019.39 $11,049.31  $23,019.39 $23,019.39    23  66 Roadway Conclusions  The City is expected to grow substantially overt the next ten years, thus increasing the need for an expanded roadway network. Given the land use assumptions and projected growth, new development is expected to demand 1,988.88 additional vehicle-miles. Eligible projectsf from the City'scurrentr roadway CIPS shouldg generate 1,160 additional lane miles. Since allo ofthe additional roadway capacity will be utilized by new development,' it is reasonable to allocate 100% ofe eligible CIP project costs tor new growtht through roadway impact fees, with ther maximum assessable fee pers service unit of $23,019.39 per Single-family service unit and $11,049.31 per  Multi-t -family service unit.  Table 20: Roadway Impact Feel Recommendation  Maximum Allowable Projects 2024CIP ProjectsTotal (50%OFCIP) $91.565,626.00 $45,782.813.00 $91,565.626.00 $45.782.813.00  Recommended Fee Assessment $23.019.00 $11,049.00  Impact Fee Category Roadway- Single- family Roadway- Mult-famlly    7. Conclusion  Ass stated in Section 1,t the CIACI recommends that the Council consider adopting upt to ther maximum allowable impact fees for water, wastewater, and roadways. They also recommend that the fees receive the 50% credit in lieu of considering the rate credits per ther recommendations of this report.  Maximum Allowable Fee Recommended Cost PerLUE With 50% Credit Assessment $9,336.40 Maximum Allowable Fee Recommended CostPerLUE With 50% Credit Assessment $19,131.42  Facility Water Projects  $18,672.79  Facility Sewer Projects  $38,262.84  Maximum Allowable Projects 2024 CIPP ProjectsTotal (50%ofCIP) MaximumA Allowable Fee Assessment $91,565,626.00 $45.782,813.00 $91.565,626.00 $45.782.813.00  Impact Fee Category Roadway- Single-family Roadway- Muli-family  $23,019.00 $11,049.00    25  APPENDIX:  Capital Improvement Plans  (Seea attached Plan PDFS)    CITY OF FARMERSVILLE IMPACT FEE STUDY 2024  Fee Eligible Project Maximum Eligible Current 91,565,626.00 23,019.39  Comparable City Impact Fees $ 813.00 1,345.00s 864.00  Totals ImpactFee ImpactFee McKinney Princeton Wylie Denison Melissa Fate ate 86,167,913.00 19.13142/52507.00 26800/51251005 876.35_s 4,569.00 598.00/54,028.00 42,051,133.00 9,336.40 787.00 MDE7IBEEI3E 6,299.00  3,659.00    10/30/24, 4:23PM Ottawal River Road Sanitary Main Collapse Ottawa River on Rd. Backto AIINews  CityofT Toledol ICityo ofT Toledo Code Enforcement Employees Begin... The city has 1i inspectors whoi issue about 26,000V violations ayear. About 50F percent of violators respondy whilet thec other half arei issued citations or proceedt toc court. Voluntary compliance with thec courtesy notice program mayr reduce ther number of cleanupst thatr must be performed byt the city and cutr reinspection costs by thousands of dollars byt thee end ofthey year. "Community groups and property owners askedi foru ustor maket this change, andi implement ar newo courtesy notice because manyt times we havei issued a citationi ford ap problem thep property owner was not previously aware of" Mr. Kennedy said.' "Manyt times peoples say: why didn'ty youjustt tell mec about thisk before giving mec aticket?" Wet thinkt this will reduce code violations because web believe people truly wantt tobe compliant with the code butt they may! be unaware ofv violations oni their  properties."  CITYOFTOLEDO DivisionofCodeE Enforcement COURTESY NOTICE        DUNAWAY  SEWERS SYSTEM CITYOFF OCTOBER    Murchisonsi Calleclor pprox  PROPOSEDO CAPITAL CIYOFFARMERSVILE 2024  DUNAWAY    PROPOSEDCAPITALI WATER SYSTEM CITYOF FARMERSVILLE 2024  DUNAWAY    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VIL.D. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Update North Farmersville Water Supply Corp. Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http:/www: famersylekxcom.governmenlagendas: and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote DA Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondivote to continue to al later date. DA Approve D Disapprove Movei item to another agenda. No motion, no action    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VIL.E. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Update Improvements to Civic Center and Library Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http:lwww.f ammersyletk.comgovermentagencas and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote DA Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondote to continue to al later date. DA Approve D Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VIL.F. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Signage Riding Arena and South Lake Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http://www.f famersyiletcomlgovemmenlagendas: and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote DA Approve D Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondvote to continue to a later date. D Approve Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VII.G. Subject To From Date Attachment(s) Agreement  City of Princeton ETJ Mayor and Council Members Ben' White, City Manager November 04,2024  Related Link(s) http:llwww. larersyllekx.comlgovemmenlagendas. and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Mation/secondivote DA Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/second/vote to continue to a later date. 0 Approve D Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action    INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT REGARDING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMERSVILLE AND THE CITY OFI PRINCETON THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION. AGREEMENT mgadiohssnwboanarst ismade ande enteredi intol! by and between the City of Farmersville, Texas (hereinafter "Farmersville") andt the City of Princeton, Texas (hereinafter "Princeton"), which cities are collectively referred to ast the WHEREAS, Farmersville isal Type A General Lawr municipality in Colin County, Texas; and WHEREAS, Princetonisal TypeAG Generall Lawr municipalityi in Collin County, Texas; and WHEREAS, the Parties are municipalities that currently, or willi int the future, share common WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 43.021 of the Local Govemment Code, the Parties are authorized and empowered to fix their boundaries and exchange area with other municipalities, and pursuant to Section 43.031 of the Local Govemment Code may make mutually agreeable changes in their boundaries that arel less than 1,000f feeti inv width; and WHEREAS, the Parties are further empowered pursuant to Section 42.023 of the Local Govemment Code tor reduce their extrateritorial, jurisdiction by ordinance orn resolution; and WHEREAS, the Parties seek to avoid certain conflicts and uncertainty relative tot the extent and location of their respective corporate limits and current and/or future extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ"),and the potential forl litigation involvingt thes same;and WHEREAS, Farmersville and Princeton have each reviewed their respective corporate boundaries and ETJ based upon their respective populations, the principles set forth in Chapter 42 of the Texas Local Govemment Code, and the location of their respective ETJ boundaries and have determined that certain areas would bel better served by the municipal services of the Parties as reflected in the boundary and proposed ETJ map (the "Map") attached hereto as Exhibit' "A" and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes allowed WHEREAS, the Cities find and determine it necessary for the health, safety and welfare of their residents to confirm boundaries and make certain agreements and adjustments regarding their respective corporate boundaries andt the ETJ;and WHEREAS, the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act, contained in Chapter 791 of the Texas Govemment Code, authorizes Texas local govemments to contract with one or more other local goverments to perfor govemmental functions and services under thet terms of said  "Parties."  boundaries; and  byl law; and  Act; and    WHEREAS, the Parties wish to avail themselves of the rights and privileges afforded byt the Interlocal Cooperation Act and have determined that this Agreement isi ine each party's best interests as well asi int the! besti interests oft the citizens; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to adopt the Map showing their respective boundaries and proposed ETJina accordance with Chapter 41 ofthe Texas Local Govemment Code, acopy ofv which Mapi is attached! hereto as Exhibit" "A". NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe covenants and conditions contained int this Agreement, Farmersville: andPrinceton: agreea ast fllows: Article1: Recitals Incorporated  1.01 Adrebwpyrasirg,EBwMeRersssppas andhampaaadnbteboalaydta/gmatatasfopadnterentiry,  Article2: Definitions  2.01 "Boundary Line" means the line dividing the adjolning or adjacent teritory tot the Parties' municipal boundaries as depicted ont the! Map attached hereto andi incorporatedherein: as Exhibit "A." The teritory is an area over which each Party has now or may obtain jurisdictional authorityontheirr respective sideofthatline. 2.02 "Jurisdictional Authority" means a municipality's right or ability to regulate one or more conditions or uses within thet territory whether itisv withini its corporate limits or ETJ,as definedbystatel law, orinanarea where mgelamyadPevaen mayoccur  consistent with Exhibit"A." Article3: Boundary Delineation  3.01 Famersvile and Princeton hereby agree to the establishment of the Boundary Line, as depictedonEwhbi"A": andtaalenadwairyhelwbantewoPata; purposes 3.02 Farmersville shall, tothee extent permitted! byk law, have Jurisdictional. Authority overt the area east ofthel Boundary Line and does! herebye expressly abandon andr relinquish. Jurisdictional Authority, ifany, tothe area westo ofthel Boundaryl Line, andfurther agreesitshalln Inote extend its Jurisdictional Authorityt tothe areav westo ofthel Boundaryline. 3.03 Princetonshall, tothee extentperittedbyl law, have. Jurisdictional Authorilyoverthe: pareav west oft the Boundary Line and does hereby expressly abandon and relinquish. Jurisdictional Authority, lfany, tothe area easto ofthel Boundaryl Line, andfurthera agreesit itshallr note extend its. Jurisdictional Authortytot thea area eastofthe BoundaryLine. 3.04 The Parties agree to declare the area over which each oft the Parties has or willl have Jurisdictional. Authority with respectt tothe! BoundaryLine.  ofestablishing. Jurisdictional Authority.    Article 4: Miscellaneous State of Texas.  4.01 This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced under thel laws ofthe 4.02 The obligations and undertakings of each of the Parties to this Agreement shall be perfomed in Collin County, Texas. The Partes agree that exclusive venue for any action pursuanttot this Agreements shall bei in Collin County, Texas. 4.03 This Agreement contains the entire agreement of Farmersville and Princeton with respect to the subjectr matter oft the Agreement. No agreement, statement, or promise madel bye eiherofthePartiest toanypartyort toany employee, agent, ord oficerofoneo ofthe Parties that is not contained int this Agreement shall be valid, binding, or of any force or effect Anyamendmentsi tothisA Mgmmimusbahwirgan: signedbythe! Partiest tobe 4.04 This Agreement shall not tbe assigned withoutt the prior written consent tofthe other Party. 4.05 This Agreement shall be deemed draflede equallyb byt the Parties. Thel language ofa all parts ofthis Agreement shall be construed as a whole accordingt to itsf fair meaning, and any presumption or principle that thel language herein ist to be construed againste either oft the 4.06 Int the event that one or more oft the provisions contained int this Agreement fora any reason shall bel held tobei invalid, llegal oru unenforceable ina any respect, suchi invalidity, illegalityor unentoroeabitydfthis/ Ageenentshalbecmsintedlastsuchinai., legalorunenforpeable provisionhadr neverbeen containedherein, butshallnota affectther remahnngpo-sonsaftis Agreement, which shallr remaini infullforce ande effect.. 4.07 Int the event of any dispute regarding this Interlocal Agreement ort the terms contained herein, thel Parties agreet that they shall submit such dispute tonon-binding mediation. 4.08 The persons signing this Agreement ont behalf oft the Parties hereby represent that they have been duly authorized and empowered to sign this Agreement on behalf oft their 4.09 Thee effective date ofthis Agreement shall bet thel lattero ofthed date ass signedby each Mayor after a properlyl held City Council meeting where ar majority oft the goveming body votedi in 4.10 The Parties! hereto agreet that theys shall adopts suchj jointo ordinance oripintresoltionortake such other action as mayb ber necessaryt to accomplisht thep purpose ofthis Agreement. The adoption of any such ordinance or resolution or the perfommance of any other action hereunder shall bec contingent, and neither shall be deemed efective nor enforceable by oneoftheParties: againsttheother, unless anduntisuchtime: ash bothParties! have adopted  enforceable.  Parties shall nota apply.  respective Parties.  favor ofthisA Agreement.    suchaj joint ordinance orj joint resolution ort taken such other necessary acts as mirror the other's acts. Provided, however, that upon adoption ofa any such joint ordinance orj joint resolution or thet takingofa any necessary act byb both oftheF Parties, the Parties agree that thee effective date afnisAgementshalbet thed date uponwhich! Farmersville: approvest this 4.11 This Agreementi is draftedf fortheb benefito oftheF Parties, ando does nota ands shallr Inot conferor IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands by their representatives who are duly authorized by their respective governing bodies ont the  Agreement.  extend any! benefito torp privilege toa anyt third party.  date indicated below.  CITY OFF FARMERSVILLE GsE Date: 3-a3-TL  ATTEST:  A Paula n  CITYOFPRINCETON ohn-Mark Caldwell, A Mayor Date: 2-22-2016 PRINC  ATTEST: Gulee  Secretary    Exhibit' "A"  BLUER RIDGE SH78 WESTMINSTER  FM:36  CR574 CR618 CR619 CR570 SH78 FM2756  MERIT 36  FARMERSVILLE FM/36 USHWY 380 FLOYD FM36  S FW380 SULLEPKA  /SH78  CR566 CR643 CR647 820 CR CR2720, CLINTON  FM36  SH78/ LOPEMILLE    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VII.H. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Wilcoxson Street Speed Limit and Lighting Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http: www. ammersyletx.comovernmentagencas and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings. .php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote D Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondivote to continue to a later date. D Approve D Disapprove Move item to another agenda. No motion, no action    Agenda Section Regular Agenda Section Number VII.L. Subject To From Date Attachment(s)  Council Liaison Positions Mayor and Council Members Ben White, City Manager November 04, 2024  Related Link(s) http:lwww. ammersyletk.comgovermentagendas and minutes/cit  ycouncil meetings.php  Consideration and Discussion Action  Motion/secondivote DA Approve Approve with Updates D Disapprove Motion/secondvote to continue to a later date. DA Approve D Disapprove Movei item to another agenda. No motion, no action    VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION    IX. REÇONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION    X. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS    XI. ADJOURNMENT