15-R-41 - Accepting the Semiannual Report with respect to the progress of the capital improvements planRESOLUTION NO. 15 -R -41
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS ACCEPTINING THE SEMIANNUAL REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROGRESS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee has reviewed the revenue
and expenditures relating to the established Capital Recovery Fees in accordance with the
Capital Improvements Plan for the City of Schertz; and
WHEREAS, the City Council accepts the Semiannual Report as filed by the Capital
Improvements Advisory Committee in accordance with Texas Local Government Code Chapter
395; then
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby accepts the draft minutes of the May 13, 2015
City of Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee as shown in the attached Exhibit A,
and the Capital Recovery Balance Report with respect to the progress of the Capital
Improvements Plan for the City of Schertz, Texas for the period of October 1, 2014 through
March 31, 2015 as shown in the attached Exhibit B.
Section 2. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true,
and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a
part of the judgment and findings of the City Council.
Section 3. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with
any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the
provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
Section 5. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application
of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City
Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid
provision.
Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which
this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject
matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was
given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended.
Section 7. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final
passage, and it is so resolved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 2nd day of June, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
(CITY SEAL)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF SCHERTZ
CAPITAL RECOVERY IMPACT FEES REPORT
OCTOBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015
Beginning Impact Fee Balance
Revenues:
Impact Fees 1
Interest Earned 2
Investments Income 3
Capital One - Investment Income 4
Expenses:
Auditor /Accounting Services 5
Investment Mgt Fee - Sewer 6
Total Revenue Over /(Under) Expense
Ending Impact Fee Balance
* * * * * * * * * * * * ** IMPACTS FEES * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Water
Sewer
Total
$4,819,987.55
$3,847,235.11
$8,667,222.66
529,587.00
280,070.28
809,657.28
359.81
209.43
569.24
2,497.09
981.58
3,478.67
0.00
8,637.07
8,637.07
(375.00)
(375.00)
(750.00)
0.00
(2,151.97)
(2,151.97)
532,068.90
287,371.39
819,440.29
$5,352,056.45 *
$4,134,606.50
$9,486,662.95
1 Impact Fees collected between Oct 1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015
2 Bank interest collected between Oct 1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015. Based on ending bank cash balance.
3 Investment Income collected between Oct 1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015
Water and Sewer have separate investment accounts.
4 Investment Income from the Capital One investment for Sewer recorded between Oct 1, 2014
through Mar 31, 2015.
6 Partial payment for the Auditor /Accounting Services on the 2014 CAFR
6 Investment Management Fee charged on the Capital One Investment for Capital Recovery
Sewer Fund.
Ending Balance for Water Includes a loan to General Fund for the Roadway Impact Fee Study per
ordinance 15 -T -09 in the amount of $116,040.
Special Joint Meeting of the
Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and
Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
Minutes
May 13, 2015
The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee convened a
Special Joint Meeting on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz
Parkway, Bldg. 4 Schertz, Texas.
Members Present:
Richard Braud
Bert Crawford
Ken Greenwald
David Richmond
Ernie Evans
Tim Brown
Dr. Mark Penshorn
Traffic Safety Advisory Commission
John Cook
Mark Davis
Larry Franklin
Eric Haugen
Staff Present:
Brian James, Executive Director
Michelle Sanchez. Director of D
Lesa Wood, Senior Planner
Robert Galindo, Assistant Finan
Patti White, Executive Assistant
1. Call to order
Mr. Richmond called the, CIA
and Mr. Penshorn as part of tf
Mem
t:
Kathy Woodlee, City Engineer
Cecilia Palomo — Graduate Engineer
Bryce Cox, Planner I
ting to order at 6:26 P.M. Mr. Richmond recognized Mr. Brown
C. Mr. Davis called the TSAC meeting to order at 6:26 P.M.
2. Hold a public hearing, consider and file a semiannual report evaluating the progress fo the city on
achieving the capital improvements program and identifying any problems in implementing the
plans or administering the capital recovery fees.
Mr. Richmond recognized Mr. James who explained as a way of introduction to TSAC that this is part
of the process where we currently charge impact fees for water and sewer and under state law, we file a
semi - annual report. Mr. James recognized, Robert Galindo, who stated that this report shows six (6)
months for the period from October 1, 2014 through March 30, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ
CAPITAL RECOVERY IMPACT FEES REPORT
OCTOBER 2014 TO MARCH 2015
IMPACT FEES
Water Sewer Total
Beginning Impact Fee $ 4,819,987.55 $ 3,847,235.11 $ 8,667,222.66
Balance
Revenues:
Impact Fees 1 529,587.00 280,070.28 809,657.28
Interest Earned 2 359.81 209.43 569.24
Investments Income 3 2,497.09 981.58 3,478.67
Capital One -
- 8,637.07 8,637.07
Investment Income
Expenses:
Auditor /Accounting
Services 5 (375.00) (375.00) (750.00)
Investment Mgmt. Fee - _ (2,151.97) (2,151.97)
Sewer
Total Revenue Over /(Under) 532,068.90 287,371.39 819,440.29
Expense
Ending Impact Fee Balance $ 5,352,056.45 * $ 4,134,606.50 $ 9,486,662.95
1 Impact Fees collected between Oct 1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015
2 Bank interest collected between Oct 1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015. Based on ending bank cash
balance.
3 Investment Income collected between Oct ;1, 2014 through Mar 31, 2015.
Water and Sewer have separate investment accounts.
4 Investment Income from the Capital One investment for Sewer recorded between Oct 1, 2014
through Mar 31, 2015.
5 Partial payment for the Auditor /Accounting Services on the 2014 CAFR
6 Investment Management Fee charged on the Capital One Investment for Capital Recovery
Sewer Fund.
* Ending Balance for Water includes a loan to General Fund for the Roadway Impact Fee Study per
ordinance 15 -T -09 in the amount of $116,040.
Mr. Richmond opened the Public Hearing at 6:31 P.M. There being no one to speak, the Public Hearing
was closed at 6:32 P.M.
Mr. Greenwald moved to accept and forward this report to City Council as presented. Mr. Crawford
seconded the motion. Vote was 7 -0. Motion carried.
3. Workshop and discussion regarding the Master Thoroughfare Plan and Roadway Impact Fee
ordinance study.
Ms. Woodlee introduced our consultant, Freese and Nichols,
manager, who will be working on the Master Thoroughfare I
stated that there would be 2 phases discussed in his presentat
the Impact Fees is Phase 2 and he discussed the following pc
• Plan Purpose
o Phase 1— Thoroughfare Plan
o Phase 2 — Impact Fee
• Project Tasks
• Transportation Plan
• Roadway Impact Fees
• The Planning Team — Project Management Team
• Plan Input
• Network System Assessment
• Previous Planning Initiatives
• Network Assessment
• Strategies and Policies - Design
• Low Impact Design Potential
• Potential `Rural Frontage' Roads
• Travel Demand Model - 2040> Demo graphics
• Issue' Identification
• i Impact Fee System
o Work Schedule
o ` Issues Identification
dcularly Eddie Haas, the project
and Roadway Impact Fees. Mr. Haas
the Thoroughfare Plan is Phase 1 and
Mr. Richmond stated that what is most important is the recognition that across our city, there are
different demographics with very dense zoning through city center to rural agricultural larger lots. Mr.
Haas stated that they are currently looking at these items. Mr. Greenwald stated that a concern is the
cross traffic and this ties into the Lone Star Rail and FM 1518 and that there has to be a better way to do
this. Mr. Haas stated that they will capture those suggestions. Mr. Greenwald stated that the south area
was all farm land to start with and about half of it is developed. Mr. Crawford stated that you should go
from the city offices to FM 1518 to IH 10. Mr. Haas said that they are hearing about the hot spots. Mr.
Crawford stated that the Cibolo Creek and areas in the floodplain that have drainage problems. Mr.
Haas stated that yes, we need to think smart about improvements. Mr. Crawford asked about sitting
down with other cities. Ms. Wood stated that Staff has had discussions about having a planning meeting
with other cities and contacted Seguin, New Braunfels, Converse, Cibolo and Selma to discuss planning
and had our first area planning meeting with a good turnout and will continue to do this on a monthly
basis on a rotating city basis.
Mr. Haas stated at this point 7:15 P.M. we would go into a breakout session so everyone could point out
problems on the maps including hot spots.
Mr. Richmond reconvened the meeting from the breakout session at 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Haas stated that he would move into the next section of his presentation and presented the following
points on the Impact Fee Overview and Land Use Assumptions:
• Impact Fee Discussion Agenda
• Role as CIAC member
• Impact Fee Basics
• Principles and Purpose
• i ne tsasic yuestnon
• Legislative Basis
• Key Policy Issues
• Items Payable with Impact Fees
• Basic Methodology
• Service Areas
• Land Use Assumptions
• Impact Fee CIP
• Service Units — Vehicle Mile
• Cost Per Service Unit Calculation
• Cost Per Service Unit Assessment vs
,Collection
• Land Use Equivalency Table
• Impact Fee Calculation
• Roadway Calculator
• What are Cities Charging?
• Impact Fee Application
• Impact Fee Process
•
Mr. Haas asked the CIAC for their input on the growth projections for the City. Mr. Glombik asked what
percentage would be correct —'4 %. Mr. Haas stated that everything they have seen in the data sources shows
that it should probably be around the middle 3's. Mr. Brown stated that there might be spiking in growth. Mr.
Haas agreed. Mr. Greenwald stated that in 2003 we started getting water from Carrizo water separating
ourselves from the Edwards Aquifer which showed an increase in permits. Discussion continued between the
CIAC and Mr. Haas. Mr. Haas concluded his presentation by stating that they will use 3.5% as a starting point
for growth and land use assumptions.
4. Adjournment: Mr. Richmond adjourned the meeting at 9:04 P.M.
Chairman, Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
Recording Secretary