Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flower Mound council approves amendments to water and wastewater master plans; impact-fee updates to be posted
Summary
Council voted unanimously to amend sections of the town's water and wastewater master plans to allow release of updated impact-fee reports. Consultants told the council that updated modeling shows a reduced projected potable supply deficit at buildout but that the town will need to monitor reuse system rollouts and consider alternate supplies by the 2030s.
The Town Council of Flower Mound unanimously approved ordinances amending sections of the town's water and wastewater master plans, clearing the way for the release of updated impact-fee reports the town will post for public review.
Bob Pegg, the town engineer, opened the public hearing and introduced consultant Connor Manley of Kimley-Horn, who summarized the modeling used to update capital-improvement needs. Manley said the master plans (originally adopted in 2009 and last majorly amended in 2020) were recalibrated with meter and treatment-plant flow data and town operational data. He said the town’s contracted water supply from Dallas Water Utilities and Upper Trinity Regional Water District currently exceeds average daily demands, but projections show a peak (max-day) deficit emerging in summer months as the town approaches buildout.
On projected figures, Manley said the update shows a potable-water deficit of about 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD) by buildout (around 2048), down from a 14 MGD projection in 2020. He added that reuse systems, if implemented, could lower that deficit further but cautioned reuse is not yet online and its effects remain uncertain. "Overall, we are well below that line today," Manley said when comparing current usage to contracted supply, noting reuse could delay the need for added supply but cannot yet be counted on.
Council members asked whether the town could model legislative-driven changes in land use (for example, conversions to higher-intensity uses) and how quickly impact fees could be updated. Staff and consultants said scenarios can be run in the model if planning staff define the assumed changes; impact-fee updates are subject to recent state law and should be reviewed on a 3–5 year schedule rather than annually.
The council then moved and approved item K1 and, separately, item K2 (both as proposed). The motions passed by unanimous roll call. Staff said the approvals allow the town to make impact-fee reports publicly available and proceed with the impact-fee process.
The town noted the capital cost estimates included capacity-driven potable-water projects of roughly $38.0 million in the five-year window and an additional $41.4 million beyond five years (total potable water projects ~ $79.3 million), with wastewater costs of about $22.9 million in five years and $58.4 million beyond (total wastewater ~ $81.3 million). The total five-year capacity-driven need summarized in the presentation was approximately $60.8 million, with nearly $100 million beyond five years; staff cautioned those figures exclude potential Trinity River Authority expansion projects that could require additional town participation.
Next steps include posting the impact-fee reports and continuing public review as part of the statutory impact-fee process.
