08-11-2015 Agenda with backup City Council Agenda
REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 11, 2015, 6:00 P.M.
HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4
SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154
08-11-2015 Council Agenda
Policy Values
Economic Prosperity
Fiscally Sustainable
Family Friendly for All Ages
High Quality of Life
Safe Community
Essential Services
Attractive Community
Innovative and Proactive
Service Oriented
Friendly City
AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2015 AT 6:00 P.M.
Call to Order – City Council Regular Session
Opening Prayer and Pledges of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States and State of
Texas. (Minister Henry Campbell, Resurrection Baptist Church)
City Events and Announcements
Announcements of upcoming City Events (/B. James/D. Wait/B. Cantu)
Announcements and recognitions by City Manager (J. Kessel)
Employee Recognition
Recognition regarding Emergency Vehicle Training Certification. (D. Wait/J.
Harshman)
Presentation
Presentation of the 2015 Hal Baldwin Scholarship to Roni Fraser. (B. Cantu/S.
Gonzalez)
Hearing of Residents
This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the City Council. Each person
should fill out the speaker’s register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to
no more than 3 minutes.
08-11-2015 City Council Agenda Page - 2 -
All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any individual member
thereof. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks while
addressing the Council may be requested to leave the meeting.
Discussion by the Council of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of
specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in
response to an inquiry, and/or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding
officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who
have signed up to speak in the order they have registered.
Workshop
Discussion and update regarding the Schertz Senior Center. (B. James)
Presentation and discussion of the FY 2015-16 Proposed Budget. (J. Kessel/ J. Walters)
Discussion and possible action regarding setting the dates and locations for “Council on
the Move” meetings. (Item requested by Councilmember Edwards)
Discussion and possible action regarding moving to three (3) Council meetings per
month. (Item requested by Councilmember Thompson)
Consent Agenda Items
The Consent Agenda is considered self-explanatory and will be enacted by the Council with
one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are removed
from the Consent Agenda upon the request of the Mayor or a Councilmember.
1. Minutes - Consideration and/or action regarding the approval of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of August 4, 2015. (J. Kessel/B. Dennis)
2. Ordinance No. 15-S-24 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance
amending Part III, Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC),
Article 9 Section 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards. Final Reading
(B. James/L. Wood/B. Cox)
Discussion and Action items
3. Resolution No. 15-R-72 – Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution
authorizing a Project Agreement with Ford Engineering, Inc., for expenditures
totaling no more than $4,000 for a variety of small consulting tasks during the
remainder of the 2014-15 Fiscal Year. (B. James/K. Woodlee)
4. Ordinance No. 15-T-26 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance
authorizing a budget adjustment for construction of the Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall
Construction in the amount of $134,800. First Reading (B. James/K. Woodlee)
08-11-2015 City Council Agenda Page - 3 -
5. Resolution No. 15-R-73– Presentation and consideration and/or action approving a
Resolution authorizing the approval of a five year rate schedule for water and
wastewater rates and other matters in connection therewith. (D. Wait/S. Willoughby)
6. Ordinance No. 15-M-25 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance
amending the City of Schertz Code of Ordinances establishing fees for certain
licenses, permits, and other services provided by the City of Schertz. First reading (J.
Kessel/J. Santoya/J. Walters)
7. Resolution No. 15-R-71 – Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution
approving Evergreen Solutions report and recommendations on City Staff
Classification and Compensation Study. (J. Kessel/J. Walters)
Roll Call Vote Confirmation
Requests and Announcements
8. Announcements by City Manager
Citizen Kudos
Recognition of City employee actions
New Departmental initiatives
9. Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers that items be placed on a future City
Council agenda.
10. Announcements by Mayor and Councilmembers
City and community events attended and to be attended
City Council Committee and Liaison Assignments (see assignments below)
Continuing education events attended and to be attended
Recognition of actions by City employees
Recognition of actions by community volunteers
Upcoming City Council agenda items
Adjournment
CERTIFICATION
I, BRENDA DENNIS, CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON
THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARDS ON THIS THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2015 AT 3:30
P.M., WHICH IS A PLACE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES
AND THAT SAID NOTICE WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551,
TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.
Brenda Dennis
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
08-11-2015 City Council Agenda Page - 4 -
I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED NOTICE AND AGENDA OF ITEMS TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS REMOVED BY ME FROM THE
OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARD ON _____DAY OF _______________, 2015.
____________________________Title:__________________________
This facility is accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped
parking spaces are available. If you require special assistance or have a request for sign
interpretative services or other services please call 210-619-1030.
The City Council for the City of Schertz reserves the right to adjourn into executive session at
any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as
authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Executive Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City’s
legal counsel and the presence of any subject in any Executive Session portion of the agenda
constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel
for the governmental body and constitutes an opinion by the attorney that the items discussed
therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering available
opinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the
attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda with the intent to meet all elements
necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted
by all participants in reliance on this opinion.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Carpenter
Audit Committee
Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions
Investment Advisory Committee
TIRZ II Board
Mayor Pro-Tem Fowler – Place 1
Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions
Schertz Housing Board Liaison
Randolph Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Executive
Committee
Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation
Councilmember Azzoz – Place 2
Animal Control Advisory Committee
Sweetheart Advisory Committee
Councilmember John – Place 3
Lone Star Rail District
Councilmember Edwards – Place 4
Audit Committee
Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee
Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions
Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation
Councilmember Thompson Place 5
Audit Committee
Agenda No. 1
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: City Secretary
Subject: Minutes
BACKGROUND
The City Council held a Regular meeting on August 4, 2015.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of August 4, 2015.
ATTACHMENT
Minutes –Regular meeting August 4, 2015.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 1 -
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
July 28, 2015
A Regular Meeting was held by the Schertz City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, on July
28, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in the Hal Baldwin Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz
Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas. The following members present to-wit:
Mayor Pro-Tem Cedric Edwards
Councilmember Jim Fowler Councilmember Grumpy Azzoz
Councilmember Daryl John Councilmember Robin Thompson
Staff Present: City Manager John Kessel
Executive Director Brian James Executive Director Dudley Wait
Executive Director Bob Cantu City Attorney Charles Zech
Bond Attorney Jeff Kuhn City Secretary Brenda Dennis
Mayor Carpenter was absent.
Call to Order
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Opening Prayer and Pledges of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States and the State of
Texas (Minister Allen Green)
Minister Allen Green, Resurrection Baptist Church provided the opening prayer followed by the
Pledges of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States and the State of Texas.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated that this evening we have several individuals here wishing to
speak on agenda item 9 and he will be moving the order around.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards moved to the consent agenda.
Consent Agenda Items
1. Minutes - Consideration and/or action regarding the approval of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of July 21, 2015. (J. Kessel/B. Dennis)
2. Ordinance No. 15-F-17 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance and
adopting new regulations regarding the collection and disposition of Solid Waste and
Recyclable Material in the City. Final Reading (D. Wait/J. Bierschwale/J. Hooks/D.
Letbetter)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-F-17
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 2 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS, REPEALING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF SCHERTZ AND ADOPTING A NEW ORDINANCE WITH
UPDATED PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL IN THE
CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
3. Ordinance No. 15-F-18 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance Granting
Cibolo Waste Incorporated, DBA Bexar Waste Inc., a Franchise for Municipal Solid
Waste Collection, Recycling, and Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal
Program. Final Reading (D. Wait/J. Bierschwale/J. Hooks/D. Letbetter)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-F-18
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CIBOLO WASTE INCORPORATED, DBA
BEXAR WASTE INC., A FRANCHISE FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION, RECYLING, AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PROGRAM; IMPOSING PROVISIONS AND
CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF SAME; AND PROVIDING
FOR PENALTIES NOT TO EXCEED $2000 FOR VIOLATION THEREOF;
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Fowler who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Azzoz to approve the consent agenda items 1 through 3. The vote was
unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John
and Thompson voting for, no one voting no. Motion passed.
City Events and Announcements
Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. James/D. Wait/B. Cantu)
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Executive Director Brian James who provided the
following announcements:
Thursday, July 30, NE Methodist Hospital 30th Anniversary Luncheon, 12412 Judson
Road, 10:30 a.m. News Conference – 11:00 a.m. Lunch, RSVP by calling 210-575-
0355.
Friday, July 31, Chamber Ribbon Cutting – Painting with a Twist, 8206 Angora
Parkway, Suite 100 (Forum) 4:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 1, City of Marion Sausage Supper, St. John’s Lutheran Church, 606
S. Center Street, 9:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. Events include a parade, trade days, meals,
games, bingo, auction, live music & dancing.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 3 -
Friday, August 7, 2015, Schertz Senior Sock Hop, Schertz Civic Center, 7:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m., live music, casino games, heavy hors d’oeuvres – cash bar, Tickets can be
purchased in advance at the Senior Center, Schertz Chamber of Commerce $25
each/$35 at the door. Wear Your Coolest 50’s Attire, more information go to
schertzseniors.org.
Saturday, August 15, Schertz Idol Finale, Crosspoint Church, 5:00 p.m.
The City of Schertz will be holding its’ General Election on November 3, 2015 for the
purpose of electing Council Members in Place 3, Place 4 and Place 5.
Any candidate desiring to have his or her name on the official ballot shall, no later than
August 24, 2015 by 5:00 p.m., file with the City Secretary an application in writing
requesting that his or her name be placed on the Official Ballot. The term of office for
said vacancies will expire November 2017.
Candidate packets are available in the City Secretary’s office or can be found online at
www.schertz.com.
Announcements and recognitions by City Manager (J. Kessel)
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Manager John Kessel who read an email he
received from Cyndi Pressler, Legacy at Forest Ridge Assisted Living Community who
stated their construction is moving along and they are looking forward to opening in a
couple of months. She stated that she wanted to pause for a breath of air and extend a
hearty “Thank You” to many of the staff in various departments of the City. She stated
that since November 2014 she has had many opportunities to participate and interact with
a variety of citizenry here in Schertz beginning with the Chamber of Commerce, Schertz
Magazine staff, city planning officers and more. While everyone has been nothing short
of generous with their welcoming attitude, supportiveness in time, information and
guidance, there are some who have and continue to stand out in their efforts to help with
building bridges and navigating challenges. One highlight of her experience was her
interaction with Executive Director Brian James and specifically Permit Expediter
Michelle Sanchez.
Hearing of Residents
No one spoke under hearing of residents.
Workshop
Presentation and discussion regarding the Class & Compensation Study prepared by
Evergreen Solutions. (J. Kessel/J. Ling)
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Executive Vice-President Jeff Ling with Evergreen
Solutions who provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the summary of results of
the Classification and Compensation Study answering questions from Council:
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 4 -
Agenda:
Study Process & Timeline/Outreach Summary/Current Assessment
Compensation Philosophy/Implementation Plan
JAT & Market Survey Methodology and Results
Proposed Pay Plan
Position Grade Assignments (Slotting Methodology)
Implementation Options, Costs and Strategy
Recommendations
Study Process & Timeline:
Conducted kickoff meeting & finalized project work plan (2/25)
Conducted Outreach and gathered relevant material from the City (3/9)
Identified market peers and benchmarks (4/21)
Employees completed JATs (Job Assessment Tool) and results were analyzed and
presented (5/28)
Presented JAT and Market Salary Survey Presentation (6/3)
Conducted external labor market survey and provided results (6/5)
Compensation Philosophy Finalized (6/20)
Preliminary Solution File Submitted (6/25)
Final Solution File submitted (7/20)
Draft Final Report Submitted (7/20)
1stPresentation to Council & Employees (7/28 –7/31)
Final Presentation to Council (8/4)
Outreach Summary:
Employees generally enjoy working for the City.
Concerns expressed concerning compression of salaries in some pay ranges and
recruitment and retention issues.
Some expressed that job classifications were outdated and there needed to be
more levels to allow for advancement.
Overall benefits were satisfactory but high cost of family health insurance is a
major concern.
Performance Evaluations are felt by some to be inconsistent across departments
and need to be conducted on a more timely basis.
Current Assessment:
City currently has one pay plan for all employees.
–Step Plan with 56 pay grades, only 31 of which are occupied. Each pay grade
has 15 steps. The range spread across the ranges is 32 percent and there is four
percent progression at midpoint.
High number of employees at minimum of pay ranges -26.5 percent and very low
at maximum: 2.5 percent.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 5 -
Salary compression issues may reside due to the high percentage of salaries (87.5
percent) below the midpoint of their respective pay grades.
Average class time in each quartile 3.0, 5.6, 5.1 and 9.5 is irregular but overall
sees a normal progression.
Compensation Philosophy:
Summary of Council’s Resolution:
–City will provide competitive and sustainable wages while balancing other work
related factors.
–Continue emphasis on pay for performance yet be mindful of fiscal
responsibility.
–Maintain internal equity and be transparent in reference to pay structure and
processes.
–Employee growth and engagement are primary drivers for retention.
Implementation Plan:
Summary of Council’s Resolution:
–City will conduct a full study at regular intervals.
–City will award merit pay increases based on annual performance evaluations.
–City will balance annual merit increases with Cost of Living Adjustments when
possible.
–City will communicate all aspects of compensation process to employees.
Implementation First Steps:
Summary of Council’s Resolution:
–1st Goal -City will adjust compensation of employees with lagging wages.
–2nd Goal –City will provide a balance between compensation and strategic
staffing levels.
–3rd Goal -City will ensure internal equity and maintain competitiveness with
external market.
–4th Goal-City will provide meaningful and competitive benefits and
communicate compensation processes to employees.
JAT Summary and Results:
Large majority of employees completed JATs: 330 representing 158
classifications.
Management Issue Tools (MITs) were completed for 13 different positions.
Classification changes were recommended for 13 different positions.
High correlation between employee scores and midpoints of salary ranges.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 6 -
Survey Methodology:
Collected Salary and/or Benefits Data from 21/26 agencies identified as targets.
Peers chosen for similar size, general proximity and comparable economic
characteristics and some for EMS positions only.
70 of City’s positions were surveyed as Benchmark Positions.
Average number of responses per position was 7.7.
Highest response rates were received for Animal Control Officer and Patrol
Officer with 15 responses.
PEER TARGETS SALARY BENEFITS
City of Austin X
City of Boerne X X
City of Cedar Park X X
City of Conroe X X
City of Georgetown X
City of Kyle X
City of New Braunfels X
City of Pflugerville X X
City of Round Rock X X
City of San Antonio X
City of San Marcos X X
City of Seguin X X
City of Selma X
City of Temple X
Comal County X
Guadalupe County X
Travis County X
Washington County X X
New Braunfels Utilities X X
San Antonio Water
System
X
San Marcos Hays County
EMS
X
Survey Results:
The City’s data were compared to the 45th percentile market median and adjusted
for Cost of Living.
Overall the City is below at Minimum, Midpoint and Maximum of salary ranges
at the 45th percentile.
Current Assessment
Average Percent Difference Range Average Peer
Market Data Minimum Midpoint Maximum Spread Per Position
Overall Average -4.8% -9.0% -12.4% 44.4% 7.7
Outliers Removed* -6.4% -10.1% -13.3% 43.0% 8.9
*Note: Positions with fewer than five responses were removed.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 7 -
If City implements proposed plan it is predicted that the ranges will be above the
market Minimum, Midpoint and Maximum at the 45th percentile market median.
Post Implementation
Average Percent Difference
Market Data Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Overall Average 2.8% 4.9% 6.1%
Benefits Summary:
Number of Health Plans offered –City offers two –higher than the peer average of
1.7.
City contributes a lower than average percentage towards the dependent portion
of premiums for employee-plus-dependent and employee-plus-family coverages.
The deductibles paid are lower in Schertz.
Sick and Vacation Time –Maximum accrual rates and amounts allowed to
rollover to next year are much higher in Schertz.
The City’s offering of Certification Pay for Police, Fire, EMS and Public Works
is consistent with those that are offered by its peers.
Proposed Pay Plan:
Plan Comparison
# of
# of Occupied # of Range Midpoint
Grades Grades Steps Spread Progression
Plan Structure
Proposed Step Plan 50 42 20 46% 4.0%
Current Step Plan 56 29 15 32% 4.0%
New plan increases number of steps and widens range spread to compensate long term,
high performing employees.
Recommended pay grade assignments resulted in more occupied grades.
Minimum of current pay grades remain the same; the midpoints and maximums increased
due to increased range spread.
Slotting Methodology:
Positions were grouped into Job Families, each with at least one benchmark position.
Job families received pay grade adjustments based on the average of its benchmarks’
market differential.
Additional pay grade changes were made to account for necessary internal equity changes
identified by the JATs.
Positions with retention and recruitment issues were addressed next to ensure proper
adjustment to meet the market.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 8 -
Upward grade adjustments were projected over a four year time frame to meet the fiscal
constraints of the City and ensure that the furthest behind are addressed first.
Implementation Option:
Implementation Option Description
Bring to Current Step Whichever current numerical step
employees occupy in the current range,
they are then placed at this step in their
proposed range.
Group Priorities based on Job Families and retention/recruitment issues were considered
first for grade increases.
Overall Grade increase was determined to meet market at the 45th percentile.
Grade increases were stretched over four year time frame.
Grade increases were calculated to fit precise step amounts of new pay grades.
Implementation costs:
Costs include salary only, benefits not factored in.
No employees receive a reduction in salary.
To Bring to Current Step:
One Time Implementation cost: $1,705,398,62
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Market Differential Being Primary adjustment factor: $643,923.73 $384,268,95 $382,012.41 $295,193.53
Recruitment/Retention Emphasis being primary
Factor, Market differential secondary: $647,957,43 $434,473.63 $327,774.03 $295,193.53
Implementation Strategy:
First implementation schedule aligns with the City’s stated compensation philosophy of
addressing market lagging positions first.
Second implementation option emphasizes immediate concerns regarding difficult to
recruit/retain positions.
A one-time immediate implementation option addresses both set of concerns.
Additional Recommendations:
Select positions/employees require reclassification based on JAT results.
That the City explore the feasibility of increasing its contribution rates to dependent
premiums so that its percentages of cost sharing are more similar to its peer cities.
Conduct localized salary survey of market peers at regular interval throughout the year to
keep its desired pace with the ever-changing market conditions.
Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study every three years.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 9 -
Summary:
When compared to the competitors market data; Schertz currently lags their peers by a
considerable margin.
After minor adjustments, the current structure of positions within the pay plan addresses
internal equity and employees are compensated fairly in comparison to their placement
on the job worth hierarchy.
By implementing these strategies the City will enhance recruitment activities, improve
retention and improve employee morale.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated that Dr. Ling had made some very interesting observations: you
said this is an extremely rare team caring organization, you mentioned the transparency and the
impactful nature in which our employees and management work together; their engagement.
You stated that the staff had the city’s best interests at heart. These are the pros. You also
mentioned some cons which were compression, recruitment, and retention. You stated that in
every compensation study that you perform, it states that individuals want more money.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated that you mentioned something about the discipline of each one
of those positions that maybe some of the management was tougher on some of their evaluations
of some of those particular employees; would that be due to some of the inter-disciplinary things
that they have with their specific job title, i.e., fire chief, engineer, police officer; they have
interdisciplinary things that are much more stringent.
In answer, Dr. Ling stated that was a very good point. The employees did not elaborate what
their perception was in that regard; however, you have identified one of the most common
reasons. If you work in a high capacity where there is a high potential risk to human life or when
you work in a capacity where the consequence of the error is quite great, if you make a mistake
on a construction project or even make a mistake in going into a home in rescuing someone, that
consequence of error typically results in the area that you work, being influenced that you have
to be perfect or close to perfect as possible because that is part of what we owe the public. So,
yes in those cases it would be related to the job title. As a hypostasis, different managers have
different levels of acceptance, different thicknesses of skin in regards to giving individuals bad
news. So what we find is if someone has a hard time with giving bad news or being someone
that is hard in regard to performance it makes a change on the part of the individuals. They see
in surveying, not Schertz, but all around the country, that a big component is not only how it
relates to the type of job but also as it relates to the level of training and personality type of the
manager.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards thanked Dr. Ling for providing a dose of reality and getting this down
to a science and stated that they have had numerous workshops where they have sat down and
discussed these areas. Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated that Dr. Ling will be around for a while
and should anyone have questions to please contact him.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who stated that Dr. Ling made
some valid points; we all know we are lagging on our pay. He asked from the employees that
were surveyed did he know if they were still working here and does he know if they left due to
pay issues since February. Dr. Ling stated that he has no doubt that this has occurred and they
do not have a listing of those employees. He is not basing that on anything specific to Schertz,
but rather from his experience of working with other municipalities throughout the country. This
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 10 -
year has been a good year for other job opportunities among jurisdictions that pay more. We
have seen a lot of movement of local government employees; however, he will add that the
employees did mention in some of the focus groups that as the economy turns if the City of
Schertz is not responsive they will be seeking employment elsewhere. We did not validate from
February to July if those things occurred.
Councilmember Azzoz stated that to sum it up, in the Metrocom area including San Antonio and
Austin, we are below market. Dr. Ling answered, yes.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Fowler who stated that he was intrigued
when you said we are competitive in the area but at the same time we are below market. There is
an implication there, that around us, we all are below market. Councilmember Fowler asked if
when we are talking about competitive, are we wage competitive or job competitive?
Dr. Ling stated that in reference to that question the City is competitive on benefits. The City is
better placed in that market than salary alone. If you look at the benefits you fall similar to your
peers with that exception that he shared earlier in regard to the dependent coverage premium.
You do have more accruals in regard to vacation and sick leave, and you also have two (2)
options to the health plan. It’s not that they equal each other out but you are more competitive in
a number of benefits in the benefits categories. He stated that on salary you have some jobs that
are at market rate and those would be competitive versus your local peers, but you have many
more that are not.
He stated in looking at the survey results and as you go through the report we have several tables
that show this is where the classification or job would be versus the market. You will find some
that are a positive number, or that you are a little ahead, and there will be others that will be a
zero that states that you are at the 45 percentile with those peers, and those that are negative will
be behind. Among those that are positive or zero you would be considered competitive in those
cases; among the negatives you would be considered behind. The benefits you offer assist you
among those that you are behind on in salary to make you a little more competitive, but overall
combined salary and benefits together as a group you are still far enough behind that you
wouldn’t be considered competitive overall. You have components, and he would reserve the
word competitive to the benefit side
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Executive Director Brian James who stated that
Councilmember Azzoz asked a question regarding our competiveness relative to not San Antonio
and Austin but the Metrocom, and perhaps Dr. Ling did not know what the Metrocom cities
were. Mr. James provided a list of peer cities. Mr. James stated the list of peer cities we
measured ourselves against, and one of the things that we have talked about in the past and while
we often in the past compared ourselves to the Metrocom cities, Selma, Converse, Universal
City, Kirby, Cibolo and others, certainly not bad comparisons, what staff would tell you and
have discussed is raising the bar and raising expectations of performance, we talk about other
cities. When we tell departments have you gone and talked to them, we are now saying have you
gone and talked to New Braunfels, Georgetown, etc., have you gone and talked to the other cities
outside the Metrocom and with this study cities like New Braunfels, Georgetown, Pflugerville
etc., is who we looked at. Because we did not compare ourselves with the Metrocom cities we do
not know how we stack up against them. When we picked the cities for comparison we asked
ourselves who do we want to be like and those are the cities that were listed earlier in the
presentation. Just to clarify we do not have a measure against the Metrocom cities because we
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 11 -
raised the bar on who we are comparing ourselves to which included: City of Austin, City of
Boerne, City of Cedar Park, City of Conroe, City of Georgetown, City of Kyle, City of New
Braunfels, City of Pflugerville, City of Round Rock, City of San Antonio, City of San Marcos,
City of Seguin, City of Selma, City of Temple.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember John who expanded on the above
information stating that $1.7 Million is a large number and it sounds like we are doing horrible.
Is there a way to pull out those other cities and do a smaller comparison? He doesn’t see how we
are going to compete with San Antonio and Austin.
Councilmember Azzoz stated that he agrees with Councilmember John and that is why he
brought up the point that our competitor is San Marcos, Seguin, New Braunfels and Selma, and
when he hears we are losing our staff, we are losing them to those cities. He stated that we are
losing employees to these cities and agrees with Councilmember John that we do a smaller
comparison. Councilmember John again asked is there a way they can reduce the cities.
Dr. Ling stated the short answer is yes. He stated that you have a listing in the PowerPoint
presentation of all the cities that responded. The market could be changed based on the
advisement of the Council or some other methodology. He would reiterate though that given
where you are at and the commuting distance you have to some of these cities, someone could
still go to work in San Antonio. San Antonio is not a prohibitive drive, recognizing that you do
not have the resources of San Antonio. He stated that as you go north and they went to Travis
County and beyond going into Georgetown, the survey has cities north of Austin and we could
take your group or a group that is within a smaller distance draw a circle and look at how the
results would change based on that. The data that was provided to them was from the individual
respondent. It’s not a data base that we do not know you said what; we do have responses from
each of the individual jurisdictions.
Councilmember John stated that it is good to have bigger goals; the immediate goals are going to
be close to home or cities of our size and our population as a comparison to be able to bring them
up to par with our averages.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Thompson who stated that Dr. Ling
mentioned at one point that when you exclude the outlier cities, what were those outlier cities
that were excluded? In answer, what was meant by removing the outliers is those respondents
we got fewer than five (5) responses from. It was those that just didn’t respond and they didn’t
exclude any cities.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Manager John Kessel who responded briefly to the
comments by Councilmember John. It is important to look at goals that are certainly a stretch for
us. When we are a city of 50,000 we are going to have to be recruiting from other cities that are
also at that size. We will be growing to 75,000 at our in population. If we are not keeping up
with these larger cities then we are going to fall behind in our ability to recruit over time. The
employees that we hire now are going to be our five and ten year seasoned veterans when we get
to 50,000. One of the challenges we have in the San Antonio area is very different, for example
from the Austin, Houston and Dallas area as we are basically the second largest suburban city.
Everyone else that is not San Antonio is who we are having to recruit from because they don’t
have experience in a larger city. If we want to hire someone who has experience doing what we
are going to become then we are going to have to recruit them out of the City of San Antonio.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 12 -
We are not so worried about employees going back there, but how do we get that individual to
leave San Antonio and come to Schertz. How do we get individuals to come from these other
areas. The large number you saw at the beginning is if we did that as a one-time process, which
you also have a very manageable step into those numbers that we can afford on an annual basis.
It is a stretch, but we can move into that position. He would make the strong argument that if we
don’t take those steps today, when we are 50,000 that number will probably be double. There is
not a way at that point for us to go ahead and move that far in a single year or even in a series of
years, and our hiring consequences five and seven years from now will be very extreme.
If we think we are losing people today at too high a rate or having trouble today not hiring, five
years from now it will be much worse. Staff would never present a plan that we could not afford
within our existing tax structure or that would challenge us beyond the ability to perform other
services. One of our tasks at the staff level is to say here is a number and how can we make it
work without that kind of an issue. He hopes that this is something that Council would have us
consider and bring back more information on how that would actually look and see if those
annual increases are more palatable then the one time big number. We would not recommend
doing this as a one-time expense; it would be too expensive for this community at this time.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who thanked staff for the report and
just to answer concerns and to Councilmember Johns comment when he says 1.7 million is a
horrible number; in a nutshell we are doing horrible. When he looks at the early start option plan
they provided, actually the money we have since February, we could have disposed of it since
February, that money we do have. $338,000 was budgeted. This is a good tool and we can start
from there, the 1.7 million would be extremely difficult. If we would have started in February
we would have been closer.
Discussion and Action items
4. Ordinance No. 15-E-22 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance calling a
General and Special Election to be held in the City of Schertz on November 3, 2015 for
the purpose of electing Councilmembers for Places 3, 4 and 5 and calling a Home Rule
Charter Amendment Election to be held in the City on such date; making provision for
the conduct of the election; authorizing contracts with the Elections Administrators of
Bexar and Guadalupe Counties to conduct this election; authorizing the election to be
held as a Joint Election. First Reading (B. Dennis/C. Zech/Council)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-E-22
AN ORDINANCE CALLING A GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD IN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ ON NOVEMBER 3, 2015 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ELECTING COUNCILMEMBERS FOR PLACES 3, 4 AND 5 AND
CALLING A HOME RULE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION TO BE
HELD IN THE CITY ON SUCH DATE; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE
CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION; AUTHORIZING CONTRACTS WITH THE
ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS OF BEXAR AND GUADALUPE COUNTIES
TO CONDUCT THIS ELECTION; AUTHORIZING THE ELECTION TO BE
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 13 -
HELD AS A JOINT ELECTION;AND RESOLVING OTHER MATTERS
INCIDENT AND RELATED TO SUCH ELECTION AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Secretary Brenda Dennis who introduced this
item stating City Council appointed a Charter Review Commission on November 18,
2014, made up of five (5) citizen members. The following members were appointed:
Mark Davis
Michael Dahle
Reginna Agee
Bert Crawford
Jana Volitis
The Charter Review Commission held its first meeting on December 10, 2014. The
Commission met 10 times over a six month period reviewing the entire Charter with the
specific goals:
On May 21, 2015, the Charter Review Commission delivered their report and
recommendations to City Council.
Mrs. Dennis stated the attached Ordinance calls the General and Special election on
November 3, 2015, for the City of Schertz for the purpose of electing Councilmembers
for Places 3, 4 and 5 and calling a Home Rule Charter Amendment Election. She stated
that the Ordinance also makes provisions for the conduct of the election with the Election
Administrators of Bexar and Comal County as well as provisions to conduct a joint
election with other entities thus holding down costs for the election.
Staff is recommending Council approve Ordinance No. 15-E-22 on first reading calling a
General Election to elect Councilmembers in Places 3, 4 and 5, and a Special 19
Proposition City Charter election to be held on November 3, 2015.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Thompson to approve Ordinance No. 15-E-22 on first reading. The vote
was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz,
John and Thompson voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed.
5. Ordinance No. 15-E-23 – Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance calling a
Bond Election to be held in the City of Schertz, Texas; making provision for the conduct
of a Joint election; and resolving other matters incident and related to such election. First
Reading (B. Dennis/Council)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-E-23
AN ORDINANCE CALLING A BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY
OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE CONDUCT OF A
JOINT ELECTION; AND RESOLVING OTHER MATTERS INCIDENT AND
RELATED TO SUCH ELECTION
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 14 -
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Secretary Brenda Dennis who introduced this
item stating On April 7, 2015, City Council appointed a Bond Committee consisting of
the following members as the Bond Committee:
Michael Dahle
Frank McElroy
Tim Brown
Fae Simmons
Maggie Titterington
Richard Dziewit
Ed Finley
Howson Lau
Barbara Hall
The Committee met during April, May, and June discussing possible ballot
considerations. On June 16, 2015, the Bond Committee recommended Council consider
the following projects: $8,000,000 Public Safety Facility; $7,000,000 FM 1103/FM 1518
street repairs, improvements; and $1,000,000 acquisition of Future Park & Recreation
Area(s).
On June 19, 2015, at their Mid-Budget Retreat, City Council directed staff to prepare two
general obligation bond propositions for the November 3, 2015 ballot.
Proposition 1: $7,000,000 General Obligation Bonds for streets (Primarily FM
1103 and FM 1518), bridges, and sidewalk improvements.
Proposition 2: $8,000,000 General Obligation Bonds for Public Safety Facilities,
including a New Fire Station.
The cost of the General, Special Charter and Bond election is estimated to be $39,802.50;
this estimate also includes publication costs.
Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance No. 15-E-23 on first reading calling a
bond election.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Thompson to approve Ordinance No. 15-E-23 on first reading calling a
bond election. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards,
Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John and Thompson voting for and no one voting
no. Motion passed.
6. Resolution No. 15-R-62 – Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute a License Agreement with Stars Cheer &
Tumbling Academy for parking spaces located at 1298 Borgfeld Road. (B. Cantu/J.
Santoya/J. Kurz)
The following was read into record:
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 15 -
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-62
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AUTHORIZING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH STARS CHEER &
TUMBLING ACADEMY, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Purchasing and Asset Manager Jessica Kurz who
introduced this item answering questions from Council. Ms. Kruz stated Stars Cheer &
Tumbling Academy, originally founded in 2003, is located on Borgfeld Road next to the
old Animal Services building. Due to a growing customer base, they have almost reached
capacity for their facilities (building and parking lot). For this reason, they have requested
use of the parking lot at the old Animal Services building to accommodate customer
over-flow parking. City management has met with the owner of Stars to discuss their
needs, and subsequently, City staff has drafted a License Agreement, which would grant
access and use of 23 City-owned parking spaces in front of the old Animal Services
building. The term of the agreement is five years, and will begin upon execution by the
City. The City will charge an annual license fee of $1,200, payable at the beginning of
each lease year, for a 5-year total of $6,000. The lease amount was difficult to determine
since there is no demand for paid parking in this area. However, staff believes that the
proposed license fee is reasonable, considering that the City does not currently have use
for the parking facilities and this agreement will help promote sustainable growth of local
businesses.
Staff recommends that Council approve Resolution No. 15-R-62, authorizing the City
Manager to execute a License Agreement with Stars Cheer & Tumbling Academy.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Thompson who moved, seconded
by Councilmember Fowler to approve Resolution No. 15-R-62. The vote was
unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John
and Thompson voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed.
7. Resolution No. 15-R-63 – Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution
authorizing a contract with Hood Communications, Inc., for Phase One of the City
Wireless Network Project. (B. James/M. Clauser)
The following was read into record:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-63
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH HOOD COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. FOR PHASE ONE OF THE CITY WIRELESS NETWORK PROJECT AND
OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized IT Director Myles Clauser who introduced this item
answering questions from Council. Mr. Clauser stated that On June 29, 2012 the City
Council approved Resolution 12-R-57 approving the proposed Master Communications
Plan. This plan offers a roadmap for creating a City-Wide network infrastructure using
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 16 -
both fiber optic and wireless networking technologies. The Master Communications Plan
was devised to support field personnel, upgrade communication channels to City
facilities, improve Public Safety operations, and provide network communications and
infrastructure for a planned public access channel designed to improve communications
and encourage citizen engagement.
On January 13, 2015, Council approved Ordinance 15-T-03 to utilize $20,000 from the
PEG (Public, Educational, and Government) fund and $20,000 from the Water
Department fund in order to implement Phase One.
Staff prepared and posted the RFP for Phase One. This phase will provide fiber optic
connectivity from City Hall to the City-owned facility located at the Live Oak water
tower, and must be completed before implementing subsequent phases. Staff reviewed
and scored bids and is seeking Council’s approval to move forward with Hood
Communications. Hood Communications is experienced and is currently hanging Fiber
on FM 3009 for AT&T.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Fowler who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Azzoz to approve Resolution No. 15-R-63. The vote was unanimous
with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John and
Thompson voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed.
8. Resolution No. 15-R-64 – Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution
authorizing an amendment of an agreement with Austex Tree Services, Inc. for tree
pruning services. (B. James/C. Van Zandt)
The following was read into record:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-64
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF AN AGREEMENT WITH AUSTEX
TREE SERVICES, INC. FOR TREE PRUNING SERVICES AND OTHER
MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Executive Director Brian James who introduced
this item stating that with approval of Resolution Number 15-R-64, City Council
authorizes execution of a contract with Austex Tree Services for tree pruning and other
related services at City parks as part of routine park maintenance. The City entered into a
contract with Austex on June 2, 2015. The original contract identified three (3) City parks
that required pruning services; Oak Forest Park, Woodland Oaks Park, and Cut-Off Park.
The scope of work included tree trimming, maintenance, removal, and repair.
This project was publicly bid using a Request for Proposals (RFP), which allowed the
City to select a contractor not only based on cost, but on qualifications and experience as
well. Austex was determined to be the best value selection based on the RFP criteria
including experience, qualifications, reputation, capability, past performance, experience
with other entities, experience with similar projects, available resources, and corporate
history and stability.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 17 -
Since execution of this contract, the City has identified an additional location which
requires tree removal services, and has requested that this location be added to the scope
of work under the existing contract.
City staff is requesting that the following paragraph be included in the scope of work
under the existing contract:
Palm Park – 200 Block of FM 78
a. Removal of fallen hackberry tree on fence marked with orange tape, and removal
of large hazardous Pecan Tree also marked with orange tape located between HP
Printing and a daycare. All wood material will be taken to the same location that
is being utilized for the present wood material recycling.
No other additional changes to the contract are requested. Staff recommends Council
approval of Resolution 15-R-64.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Fowler to approve Resolution No. 15-R-64. The vote was unanimous
with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John and
Thompson voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed.
9. Ordinance No. 15-C-20– Conduct a Public hearing and consideration and/or action
approving an Ordinance amending the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18,
Buildings and Building Regulations, by repealing existing International Codes and
adopting new International Codes and adopting the revised Schertz Code of Ordinance,
Chapter 18, Building and Building Regulations. First Reading (B. James/M. Sanchez/G.
Durant)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-C-20
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ CHAPTER 18, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BY
REPEALING EXISTING INTERNATIONAL CODES AND ADOPTING NEW
INTERNATIONAL CODES; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Permit Expediter Michelle Sanchez and Chief
Building Official Gil Durant who provided a PowerPoint presentation with the following
highlights:
Project Overview Statement
• Adoption of the 2012 ICC Codes is necessary because we are currently working
under a code that was developed almost a decade ago.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 18 -
• Industry standards have changed providing for implementation of new
construction practices and improvement in safety standards for the welfare of the
community.
• By updating building codes, we will stay up to date with other cities; and because
builders are already accustomed to the 2012 codes, it increases the efficiency of
construction standards for the homeowner and the builder.
Code Comparison Benchmark Cities and Surrounding Cities
• New Braunfels – 2006 International Codes
• San Marcos – 2015 International Codes
• Temple – 2009 International Codes
• Georgetown – 2012 International Codes
• Pflugerville – 2012 International Codes
• Cibolo – 2015 International Codes
• Selma – 2012 International Codes
• Live Oak – 2015 International Codes
• Universal City – 2015 International Codes
• Converse – 2009 International Codes
• San Antonio – 2015 International Codes
Codes Proposed for Adoption
• International Building Code (IBC) 2012
• International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings (IRC) 2012
• International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2012
• International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2012
• International Plumbing Code (IPC) 2012
• International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) 2012
• International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC) 2012
• International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) 2012
• International Energy Conservation Code (2009) *State Mandated
• National Electrical Code (2014) *State Mandated
• Manual of Cross Connection Control – 10
th
Edition
• International Fire Code (IFC) 2012 will be adopted by separate ordinance
Process
• Staff took a very different approach to amendments to the codes by asking for
input from numerous groups and hosting several public input meetings over the
last several months.
Schertz Chamber
Economic Development Corp.
Builders, Engineers, Sub-trades
Greater San Antonio Builders Association
Planning and Zoning Commission
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 19 -
Ms. Sanchez stated all groups provided beneficial feedback and up until two weeks ago,
staff was still making changes as a result of the builders and GSABA meetings and their
suggestions. They really appreciate input from all groups; and staff will continue to work
with the builders and GSABA on future code revisions and issues.
Workload & Catch-Up
• Residential permit volume has increased tremendously with 117 permits being
received since May 1 to July 23; in comparison to the same period last year when
49 permits came in.
• Permits issued for the same time period was 49 in 2014 compared to 103 this
year.
Ms. Sanchez stated at all these meetings, staff heard frustration from builders that it was
taking too long to review plans. Staff agreed. The upsurge in plans started in December
2014 with 48 plans received; and we were not prepared for that.
1. Had just hired a new Building Official
2. Had one position open for inspectors/plans examiners; added another
3. Entered into two contracts for plans examiners.
4. Allowed for staff overtime to review plans and enter permits. (Actually not allowed
but requested overtime)
5. Just hired a new inspector that started on Monday.
6. Have entered into two (2) contracts for inspection services.
As of today, there was one set of plans waiting for review; and comments have been
issued to builders on all plans received. 10 were returned by outside contractor; staff will
perform QC review tomorrow and we will be at a one (1) week turn around on plans that
came in 7-21 & 7-22. We are caught up thanks to Jim, Carl, Gil, Bernice, Debbie; Patti,
Bruce and Rudy. We are committed to maintaining this momentum. If another upsurge
occurs however, we may fall behind again; but we will be prepared on how to address it
and have processes in place.
New Process improvements have been created.
Goal is to provide a quality review and not compromise that for a quick turn-
around.
Invited builders to show them how we review plans.
Creating a 100 point plan review checklist.
Tracking the review process of plans received from the applied date to the
issuance date.
Communicating the status of review to builders by phone and email.
Reorganization of department to concentrate on process improvements &
customer service.
Ms. Sanchez stated Armadillo, MI, David Weekly and Imagine Homes have all done a
great job to turn in plans with few to no corrections required. 100 point checklist by
inspectors marking up plans with notes; it makes the inspection process more efficient in
the field and there are fewer issues. There has been reorganization in the department
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 20 -
where she is the Permit Expediter who is tracking the status of projects and
communicating with the builders on where their plans are in the review and approval
process.
Issues
• Adopted many of the current local amendments but with a few changes.
Permit exemptions for residential one-story detached accessory structures less
than 120 square feet, and replacement fences, siding and arbors.
• GSABA’s concerns:
Having residential plans stamped by design professional.
Having the design engineer on-site for foundation pour.
Sound Transmission Standards as part of the building code.
Ms. Sanchez stated that in regard to exemptions, staff felt that reviewing the accessory
buildings, replacement fences, siding or arbors didn’t add value; and homeowners are
frustrated with the permit process; and although we appreciate comments by Mr.
Richmond, we felt that by exempting these types of permits we could concentrate more
on the new residential and new commercial and miscellaneous permit plan reviews. This
ensures that projects with safety issues (i.e., swimming pools/spas); and those that are
more technical in nature (room additions, remodels, flatwork, steel, energy efficient items
such as windows and solar panels) comply with code and inspection requirements. Met
with GSABA members and reviewed the ordinance on July 13 and 14; and came away
with a few changes and clarifications. They didn’t take everything that was suggested.
1. Permit exemptions, they suggested exempting accessory structures of 200 feet or less.
Staff felt that having a storage shed the size of a one-car garage may be too big for a
standard backyard.
2. They felt the cost of having the design engineer on-site for the concrete pour raised
the cost of the home by $5,000 which is passed on to the homeowner. Staff feels that
the community has expressed the willingness to ensure their investment by supporting
this requirement. Staff is committed to working with GSABA over the next few
months and to report to Planning and Zoning by the end of the year.
3. Sound Transmission – staff used the study prepared for Camp Bullis and modified it a
bit to specify that habitable spaces located within a 65 Dba would have to comply
with interior construction requirements to minimize air traffic noise. Will monitor
implementation and revise as necessary.
Recommendations
• Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 15-C-20 establishing new International
Codes as presented.
• Proposed effective date – October 1, 2015
Ms. Sanchez stated that this would be implemented in October which will allow for
builders to finalize current contracts, and did not want to create any problems for them or
the homebuyer by changing mid-stream with adoption in July. Plans received prior to
October 1 will continue under the 2006 codes. She thanked GSABA and to all the
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 21 -
individuals that had input; it has made a positive difference in rolling out the new codes
and amendments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the changes proposed at their regular
meeting of July 22, 2015 and offered a recommendation of approval by a 5/1 vote.
Staff recommends that the public hearing be conducted and that the first reading of
Ordinance 15-C-20 amending the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Buildings and
Building Regulations by repealing existing International Codes and adopting new
International Codes and adopting the revised Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18,
Building and Building Regulations be approved.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards opened the public hearing and recognized the following:
Mr. Jim Leonard, 401 Holland Ave, with GSABA who credited staff for the work
they have done in the last six days and for meeting and working with GSABA.
He also stated that they continue to work with staff and believe that the work
needs to continue before approving the ordinance as they are willing to be a
resource to the city.
Ms. Liz Richtler, 211 Loop 1604, DR Horton who spoke on concerns with pulling
permits, permit problems and plan review process problems. She did indicate that
the recent changes have made the plan review process better.
Mr. Jay McJunkin, 10806 Korbort Canyon, MI Homes who expressed concerns
regarding the size of submittal papers as compared to other cities. He also spoke
regarding the differences of the submittal plan documents and that each page has
to be signed by an engineer, stating the signatures come with a price. He credited
staff regarding the process changes.
Mr. Chris Jurgens, 10422 Huebner Road, D. R. Horton Vice President of
operations who spoke on the problem of having a design engineer on site during
the concrete pour. He also addressed the size of the submittal documents. He
spoke regarding the cost to have an engineer on site for the concrete pour and
made his recommendations. He credited staff for the recent changes they have
made to the permit approval process. He requested Council vote no this evening
to allow staff to work with the group to come up with the proper
recommendations.
Mr. Greg Asvestas, 12930 Country Ridge, MLAW Engineers, who spoke on
suggestions for submittal documents. He provided suggestions for R106.1.4
Submittal Documents. He spoke regarding the deflection criteria, ASCE
Guidelines, and foundation evaluation. He provided suggested changes regarding
the current City of Schertz Inspections making suggestions which consisted of:
eliminating the engineer at pre-pour, eliminate the rough grading letter from PE,
eliminate 3 day PE stud letter and eliminate the 7 day PE stud letter (second
floor). He thanked the staff for all their efforts and to GSABA for the work they
have put into this.
Mr. Rick Bowman, 12303 Boneta Cove, PE with MLAW who expressed his
concerns for having a Design Engineer on site during the concrete pre-pour
stating that this person needs to be an expert on concrete.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 22 -
Ms. Maggie Titterington, Chamber President and homeowner who expressed the
desire to invite further talks with the groups before making a decision. She
supports the idea of further dialogue with the right people and groups. She
expressed her appreciation to Mr. James and Ms. Sanchez for working with
these groups. She stated as a homeowner she is pleased at how the City of
Schertz cares so much about how her house is built and has taken a lot of care and
thought. She stated that after the presentation tonight she believes and supports
further talks with the groups before a final vote is taken on this ordinance.
Mr. Lee Randolph, 3920 Arroyo Del Sol, who addressed council with having the
engineers stamp on residential plans and the engineered frame document and a
separate engineers stamp on irrigation and landscape plans. He wanted to know
where some of the requirements came from. He also is against having an
engineer on site during the concrete pour.
Mr. Tim Pruski, 26277 High Timber Pass, who addressed Council regarding the
sound continuation item stating that this should be in the UDC and not in the
building codes. He spoke about the JULIS requirement being more transparent
and that this should also be in the UDC or a separate ordinance and not in the
building code. He spoke about inconsistencies that are not finalized in the
document. On the IBC for permits it shows 45 calendar days for IRC and this
document has 45 days. We agreed to 45 calendar days and it is not in the final
draft that was submitted to them. He stated that staff is working with them and
recommend the city take their time and do it right.
Mr. Joe Leos, 211 Loop 1604, who stated that he wanted to give his time to Mr.
Jim Leonard for final comments.
Mr. Jim Leonard, 401 Holland Ave, who is with the GSABA organization who
addressed the Council providing his final comments. He stated that tonight
Council heard from experts in their field that put a lot of time and energy into
their work but also serving the community giving back and participating in the
group discussions. He stated he is glad to see the work advanced by staff and have
taken their comments seriously over the last several weeks and complimented
staff for working with them. He stated that as you have heard there are still
concerns moving forward with the ordinance and recommends Council table this
item to continue more dialogue.
Mr. Ken Greenwald, 205 Westchester, who stated that the Planning & Zoning
Commission and Council and several staff members spent many months looking
for information on slabs. How do we check them, any kind of information, no
one stood up. We took our best guess and approved an ordinance and it has been
in existence for over two and a half years to require the engineer to be on sit e
during the concrete pour, and now it’s a problem. Maybe this can be worked out
and believes that Mr. James can work out a solution. He stated that regarding the
sound continuation item, this needs to stay exactly where it is. Randolph is in the
process of changing and upgrading their T38’s sometime in the future. The sound
continuation must be very carefully watched or we will not have Randolph Air
Force Base. The number of military out there is minimal its more civil service
now than you can imagine.
As no one else spoke, Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards closed the public hearing for Council
Comments.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 23 -
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who asked Mr. James how
he would go about getting a permit processed.
Mr. James stated they accept them as a walk-in, a fax or e-mail. However, the
department does not have any unified permitting software like San Antonio is currently in
the process of getting. We are debating do we take big paper plans or small paper plans.
Councilmember Azzoz stated there is a cost involved which the customer is going to
absorb. Mr. James continued stating since we do not have an electronic avenue for
customers to submit plans they are unable to check the status of those plans; nor can our
staff review them electronically. We have a very labor intensive process because we
don’t have that software. Staff would agree with you that there are things we could do in
terms of planning software, larger computer monitors, and building software to speed up
the process. Councilmember Azzoz recommended not making any decisions tonight and
send this item back to let staff work it out.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember John who asked if there were any
commercial builders who were contacted. Mr. James answered yes they did make contact
with some of those who worked with us. He thinks on the commercial builders they have
already been wondering when we were going to move from the 2006 code to the 2012
code. So in terms of adopting the 2012 code we have not gotten any push back because
other communities are already using it. What you have heard are some process issues and
some local amendments. The local amendments seem to cause the most frustration such
as the requirement for the design professional (architect or engineer) to design that set of
plans for a residential home. Commercial code already requires that and they are al ready
used to that. In regard to foundations we tend to find on big commercial projects it is not
that much of a problem to have the engineer/designer out there when they pour the slab.
What the commercial folks would probably tell you is that the process needs to be
quicker and more consistent.
He stated most of what you have heard tonight are concerns on local amendments that we
have actually had in place prior to this adoption. The requirements for an
engineer/architect to be on the residential site when pouring the foundation is a local
amendment; but we haven’t heard complaints from the commercial folks.
Councilmember John stated he has heard a lot of the comments and he is a bit reluctant to
move forward with this and feels there are a lot more issues to work through. However,
he is happy to hear the Inspections Department is getting caught up though.
Mr. James provided a brief explanation of the heavy workload staff has had to deal with
until some recent staff additions. However, there is a real issue of volume out there. We
are required to do a quality review and a timely turn around. We are trying to balance this
and continue getting better as we go forward. Councilmember John responded that we
are on the right track and council could maybe have a workshop to get this all worked
out, not take any action tonight and wait to get a bit more information.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Fowler who stated he has heard a
lot tonight. He doesn’t have a problem with us taking a look at these ACI inspectors. His
question to the gentlemen from the Greater San Antonio Business Association ( GSABA)
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 24 -
is do all of you have ACI inspectors on your jobs? He agrees with Councilmember John
and thinks maybe we should have a workshop and get some more assurance to
understand what role and what authority the inspector has on these jobs.
Mr. James responded that we should keep in mind why we put in place the provision to
have the engineer present when the foundation is poured. One thing we heard over and
over again from the residents in the past was the frustration they had as they experienced
problems with their houses (some which were rebuilt). They were being told by the
engineer that he had designed a good foundation and the people pouring the foundation
said they also did a good job. So one accused the other of causing the issue; no one took
the blame. Every provision we passed was because of problems we heard of from
residents. However, we are still committed to a better solution if we discover one.
Anything we change, we may find ourselves back in our old situation. Councilmember
Azzoz, said he thinks we should look at this again; he is not in favor of an engineer
standing there watching a slab being poured and costing a resident more money.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Thompson who stated he is in
favor of having a workshop between Planning and Zoning, GSABA, Planning and
Permitting and Council and work this out. He had a few questions. Can Planning and
Permitting come up with a few recommendations to Council as to ways they can be
empowered by Council to make changes?
Mr. James answered that staff can generally make some changes on a regular basis.
However, when Council passes an ordinance that says you have to have that residential
home sealed by an architect or engineer, if staff says okay you don’t have to do it, then ,
in effect the staff member, in this scenario, has no real authority because it is a
requirement per council’s ordinance.
Councilmember Thompson also asked if there was a possibility of having a grandfather
option for plans already in progress or a 30 to 60 day directive that can be given to
homebuilders advising them of the upcoming change.
Mr. James answered sometimes they can phase things in. Councilmember Thompson
asked what percentage of the 2012 code is agreeable to virtually everybody and what part
is still in question to many people. Mr. Jim Leonard with GSABA stated they have no
issues with the code; rather it is simply the local amendments. The codes change every
three years and a lot of the issues brought up are in regard to health and safety. In the case
before us, the local amendments are amending the code up to a stricter level.
Councilmember Thompson agreed with the idea of having a workshop to discuss this
further.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated he was here when we had the previous problems with the
Fairhaven Subdivision issues. There were numerous hours spent trying to figure out what
to do. It was ugly and there was a lot of media coverage. We sought out the avenues of
information and no one came forward. Tonight we had good information. We have to
protect the citizens. He asked how much time we have. He thinks we are operating with
an expired code.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 25 -
Mr. James answered stating they received a letter from the ISL rating service which is the
insurance service on the fire code ratings and they look at a variety of factors such as
what codes you are operating under. It hurts you if you have not updated yourself to the
more current codes. That letter prompted us to do this update and we have until the end of
August. We can call them and they may very well agree to give us additional time.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards stated he agreed with the prior suggestion to take a step back
and get more input from the stakeholders.
City Manager Mr. Kessel stated the City of Schertz is not trying to be the fastest growing
city in the area but rather the highest quality development which will be sustainable. It is
not our intention to artificially raise the price. We had a real situation here that exposed
some issues that we did not have an ability to address. We can’t go backwards and relive
that Fairhaven situation. He thinks we have identified some very clear items to address
further and most importantly, the dialogue between the HOA’s, Inspections and Permits
and others, by moving the dialogue forward. This is about how do we work together in
the future. Let’s keep the dialogue open as we move on. Mr. Kessel offered
compliments to Mr. James, Mr. Durant, Ms. Sanchez, and the Homebuilders Association
for taking the time on this matter and stepping up.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards tabled this item until mid-September for staff to provide an
update at that time.
10. Ordinance No. 15-C-21 – Conduct a Public hearing and consideration and/or action
approving an Ordinance amending the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30, Fire
Prevention and Protection, by repealing existing International Codes and adopting new
International Codes and adopting the revised Schertz Code of Ordinance, Chapter 30,
Fire Prevention and Protection. First Reading D. Wait/D. Covington/J. Perry)
The following was read into record:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-C-21
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ CHAPTER 30, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION BY
AMENDING EXISTING INTERNATIONAL CODES AND ADOPTING NEW
INTERNATIONAL CODES.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Fire Marshal John Perry who introduced this item
stating the City Council has determined a need to revise current building and fire codes
with regard to fire, building, fuel/gas and electrical requirements. The revisions proposed
are intended to ensure the proper construction and life safety of structures built in the
City and to follow compliance with the requirements of the Insurance Service Office Inc.
Fire Department staff researched target cities and several surrounding cities on the codes
they are operating under and have recently adopted. During the res earch amendments
taken by these target cities the results were noted and compared to current City adopted
codes. The City of Schertz is currently under the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC).
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 26 -
The purpose of the IFC is for construction and occupancy safety as well as setting a
minimum safety standard for occupancy. Additionally, the IFC covers life safety for both
the occupants and responders. With the adopted amendments to the IFC 2012 the City
will be in line with surrounding cities and for building construction and life safety.
A workshop was held at the May 26, 2015 City Council meeting for discussion and
comments related to the IFC amendments. Fire Department staff attended construction
industry meetings that were held to include attendance by GSABA members on July 13
and 14, 2015. Amendments were sent to City Legal staff for review and approval.
Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30, Fire Prevention and Protection amendments
include:
Amending Article II Fire Marshal - Section 30-22 – Responsibilities
1. Clarified the designees of the Fire Marshal and their role as it pertains to state
certified peace officers and the Fire Code. This allows enforcement of the
Code by a greater number of personnel for safety reasons.
Amending Article IV Fireworks Code – Section 30-64 Fireworks Prohibited
1. Amended section to follow with State laws.
Amending V Fire Prevention Code
1. Amended Section 30-81 Fire Prevention Code to adopt International Fire
Code 2012 and pertinent appendices.
2. Amended Section 30-82 Amendments to adopt proposed amendments to the
International Fire Code 2012.
Amending Article VI Life Safety Code
1. Amended to adopt most current edition of National Fire Protection
Association Standard 101 – Life Safety Code.
Mr. Perry continued by explaining the reasons for the amendments and he also expanded
on what the new changes and definitions mean and what specific areas are affected.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the changes proposed at their regular
meeting of July 22, 2015 and offered a recommendation of approval.
Staff recommends that the public hearing be conducted and that the first reading of
Ordinance 15-C-21 amending the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30, Fire Prevention
and Protection by amending existing International Codes and adopting new International
Codes and adopting the revised Schertz Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30, Fire Prevention
and Protection be approved.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards opened the public hearing and recognized the following:
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 27 -
Mr. Robert Brockman, 1000 Elbel Road, who asked about the Merritt Lakeside Village as
to whether or not they have a sprinkler system in their building with stand pipes. Fire
Marshal Perry confirmed that they did have a full sprinkler system in the building. They do
not have stand pipes in the stairwell. It is one of the buildings that does not meet the current
requirements.
As no one else spoke, Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards closed the public hearing for Council
Comments.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember John who asked what they do in
situations where a building simply cannot meet all the requirements in regard to required
fire lanes; are you able to do something to ‘fit the need’? Mr. Perry stated right now,
according to code, you are allowed 150 feet. All points of the building must b e within 150
feet of an approved fire access road. These are the things that are looked at as part of the
design and development phase as far as the site plan goes and they work with the
contractors to ensure they can meet all those requirements. They can also work things out
with existing buildings to be compliant.
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Azzoz who moved, seconded by
Councilmember Thompson to approve Ordinance No. 15-C-21 on first reading. The vote
was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Fowler, Azzoz, John
and Thompson voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed.
Roll Call Vote Confirmation
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Secretary Brenda Dennis who provided the roll call
vote information for agenda items 1 through 10.
Requests and Announcements
11. Announcements by City Manager
Citizen Kudos
Recognition of City employee actions
New Departmental initiatives
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized City Manager John Kessel who stated he had read
from an email earlier tonight that he received from Cyndi Pressler who complimented
Executive Director Brian James and Permit Expediter Michelle Sanchez regarding their
customer service to her. She expressed special appreciation for Ms. Sanchez’s
professionalism, knowledge, skill, focus, and courtesy in answering her questions and
guiding her through the permit process. Mr. Kessel pointed out that we have limited
resources in most of the departments throughout the city and it takes committing our
resources towards key positions and maintaining a balanced approach. He thanked
Development Services staff and others like them for their dedication to the city’s
customers.
12. Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers that items be placed on a future City Council
agenda.
7-28-2015 Minutes Page - 28 -
No requests were made.
13. Announcements by Mayor and Councilmembers
City and community events attended and to be attended
City Council Committee and Liaison Assignments (see assignments below)
Continuing education events attended and to be attended
Recognition of actions by City employees
Recognition of actions by community volunteers
Upcoming City Council agenda items
Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards recognized Councilmember Fowler who stated he thought the
Evergreen Solutions presentation was not only eye-opening but it is giving us an
opportunity to make things better. He asked the city manager for permission to sit in on
one or two of the upcoming Evergreen Solutions briefings with our employees to see
what kind of comments are made and just to get information. City Manager John Kessel
stated he and other councilmembers are certainly welcome to attend one but reminded
them of a possible quorum in attendance and that there can be a chilling effect in the
room if a council member is there, resulting in staff members who may then become
reluctant to ask key questions of the presenter(s). If you do attend a meeting, recognize it
is a different format than what was presented tonight. Mr. Fowler stated that due to the
high percentage rate (99%) of employee participation in this study, he feels there is an
expectation from staff that we will do the right thing and fix anything that appears to be
broken. He said we have a responsibility to make sure that happens.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
__________________________________
Cedric Edwards, Mayor Pro-Tem
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
Agenda No. 2
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: Development Services
Ordinance No. 15-S-24 – Conduct a Public
Hearing and consideration and/or action on
an amendment of Part III, Schertz Codes of
Ordinances, Unified Development Code
(UDC), Article 9 Sec. 21.9.5 Exterior
Construction and Design Standards. (Final
Reading)
BACKGROUND
City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 15-S-24 on August 4, 2015.
As stated in the UDC, City Council from time to time may make amendments, change or modify
text to any portion of the UDC to establish and maintain sound stable and desirable development.
It is generally considered good practice to periodically review and update the development
regulations due to changing conditions, community goals and State and Federal regulations.
UDC Sec. 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards was identified as a section in need
of revision. In order to solicit stakeholder opinions and assist with the revision to UDC Sec.
21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards, Planning Staff created a focus group. The
Design Standards Focus Group was comprised of various architects, engineers, developers, and
City Boards including Board of Adjustment, Schertz Economic Development Board, and
Planning and Zoning Commission. Through brainstorming, guided discussions and a photo
survey, the focus group diagnosed problems with the current design standards, identified the
aspects which promote quality development, and developed the following goals for the new
design standards:
Clear language- easy to understand and interpret; and
Categorize standards by building type or by building use; and
Encourage creativity and innovation with sustainable materials.
A public hearing and workshop discussion was held at the June 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting where public input was received. The Planning and Zoning Commission
requested a change in Sec.21.9.5.F.2.B in regards to the percentage of required materials in
multifamily developments from the original staff proposal of 60% to “100% of the front façade
City Council Memorandum
Page 2
and a total of 80% of the entire building shall be finished in one or more of the following
materials: Brick, Stone, Faux Brick or Stone, Tile.”
A second public hearing and workshop discussion was held at the June 22, 2015 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting. Based on Commissioner comments from the June 10th meeting,
Staff presented photographs related to the proposed changes and provided requested definitions.
A final public hearing was conducted at the July 8, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting, where the Commission by a unanimous vote, forwarded a recommendation of approval
to City Council.
This amendment was drafted by Planning Staff and reviewed by the City Attorney.
The public hearing notice was published in “The Daily Commercial Recorder” on July 15, 2015
and the “Herald” on July 22, 2015.
Goal
To amend the UDC to review and update the development regulations due to changing
conditions, community goals and State and Federal regulations as well as establish and maintain
sound stable and desirable development.
Community Benefit
It is the City’s desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with
the City’s vision of future growth.
Summary of Recommended Action
Planning Staff drafted this amendment based on the recommendations and input from the Design
Standards Focus Group. The revised design standards have been organized based on the intended
use of the building. There are five building use categories; Industrial, Commercial, Office/Public,
Multi-Family, and Single-Family Residential. This allows for specific standards to be
appropriately applied to different building types.
There are three design elements that were identified as contributing most to aesthetical
appearance:
1. Building materials;
2. Glazing- amounts of windows and doors;
3. Articulations – vertical and horizontal breaks in the rhythm of a building.
These three elements are regulated under the current design standards as well. The proposed
amendment continues to regulate these elements, but also provides additional flexibility to
encourage innovation and promote quality development. The following is an overview
description of the proposed changes:
Materials:
City Council Memorandum
Page 3
The current design standards require all Multi-Family and Non-Residential buildings to have a
front façade of 100% masonry material, and each of remaining facades must be comprised of a
minimum of 75% masonry materials. Masonry materials is defined as brick, stone, stucco,
cementatious fiberboard, split face concrete masonry units, concrete with an aggregate finish and
faux stone or brick.
The proposed amendment provides flexible options for industrial, commercial, office/public and
multi-family building types by allowing accent materials to be used on the front façade.
Additionally for industrial and multi-family buildings the amendment provides an alternative of a
100% masonry front façade and a cumulative percentage of the entire building as masonry
materials. The proposed amendment also specifies which masonry materials can be used on each
of the building types. This allows for creativity and innovation in material usage while
promoting quality development through the use of aesthetically appropriate materials for the
various building types.
Glazing:
The current design standards require the front façade of commercial buildings to be comprised of
30% windows and doors that provide visibility into the building. Additionally the current design
standards requires the front façade of industrial buildings in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts to be
comprised of 15% windows and doors that provide visibility into the building. The current
requirement does not provide any flexibility for distributing the required glazing around the
building.
The proposed amendment provides flexible glazing options for industrial, commercial and
office/public building types by allowing the applicant to choose a set percentage of the front
façade to be comprised of windows and doors or, to use a higher percentage of windows and
doors that will be spread around the building. Additionally the proposed amendment clearly
defines what side of the building is considered the front and provides additional requirements
and options for buildings which front on two or more streets.
Articulations:
The current design standards require vertical and horizontal articulations on all walls which are
longer than twice the walls height. The depth of the articulation is a percentage of the wall’s
height. Additionally if a horizontal articulation is required, the length of the new plane created by
the articulation must be at least 25% of the walls length. The current requirement is very wordy
and lacks clarity in its language.
The proposed amendment provides clear language as to when articulations are needed and sets a
minimum articulation depth of two feet (2’) instead of a variable percentage. Additionally the
proposed amendment provides articulation criteria specific to each building type (industrial,
commercial, office/public and multi-family) which allows for flexibility and aesthetics that cater
to the specific building type. The proposed amendment regulates the building facades which are
most visible to the public, allowing for synergy between the building form, function and
aesthetics.
Additional Changes:
Building Expansions– The amendment proposes to make building expansions which
cumulatively increase the gross floor area more than 25% of the original building area, comply
City Council Memorandum
Page 4
with the design standards. This will allow existing older buildings which would like to make a
small expansion be able to maintain the original building aesthetics.
Single Family Residential Materials- The proposed amendment removes split face CMU from
the list of approved masonry materials for a single-family residential dwelling.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted the public hearing on July 8, 2015 and by a
unanimous vote, forwarded a recommendation of approval to City Council.
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 15-S-24 an amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC), Article 9, Section 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards as presented.
Staff has proposed an effective date of October 1, 2015.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance No. 15-S-24
UDC, Sec. 21.9.5 (Current Standards)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-S-24
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
AMENDING PART III, SCHERTZ CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) ARTICLE 9 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS,
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 21.9.5 EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
STANDARDS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 10-S-06, the City of Schertz, Texas (the “City”)
adopted as Amended and Restated Unified Development Code on April 13, 2010, as
further amended (the “Current UDC”); and
WHEREAS, City Staff and has reviewed the Current UDC and have recommended certain
revision and updates to, and reorganization of, the Current UDC;
WHEREAS, A focus group consisting of the Board of Adjustment, Economic
Development Board, Planning & Zoning Commission, and design professionals met on
March 13, 2014 and April 16, 2014 to discuss and provide input on the exterior
construction and design standards; and
WHEREAS, all required notices have provided; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
to receive public comment; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public
hearing to receive public comment; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
and thereafter recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015 the City Council conducted a public hearing and
determined that the proposed amendments are appropriate and in the interest of the public
safety, health and welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS:
Section 1. The Current UDC is hereby amended by replacing the existing language found in
Section 21.9.5 (entitled “Exterior Construction and Design Standards”) with the language set
forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes.
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 Ordinance for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the
judgment and findings of the Council.
Section 3. All ordinances and codes, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with
any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance 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 Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance and the application of
such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City
hereby declares that this Ordinance would have been enacted without such invalid provision.
Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this
Ordinance 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 Ordinance, was
given, all as required by Chapter 551, as amended, Texas Government Code.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be effective on October 1, 2015.
PASSED ON FIRST READING, the 4th day of August, 2015.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, the 11th day of August, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
_______________________________________
Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Secretary, Brenda Dennis
(CITY SEAL)
Exhibit A
Unified Development Code
Article 9 Site Design Standards
Section 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards
See Attached
Sec. 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards
A. Intent
It is the intent of these design criteria to provide guidelines for new
construction in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance as well
as ensure sound construction quality.
B. Applicability
The provisions of this section are deemed to be minimum standards and shall
be applicable to the following:
1. All new buildings within the corporate limits of the City; and
2. Building expansions which cumulatively increase the gross floor area more than 25% of
the original building area.
C. Industrial Buildings
1. Applicability
This section shall apply to buildings with an industrial use.
2. Exterior Building Materials
Buildings must comply with one of the following:
a) At least 80% of each wall (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Concrete tiltwall
Split face CMU
Stucco
Tile
Or
b) 100% of the front façade (façade adjacent to or facing a public street) and a total of
75% of the entire building (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Concrete tiltwall
Split face CMU
Stucco
Tile
3. Glazing
All buildings must comply with one of the following:
a) At least 15% of the front facade (façade adjacent to or facing a public street) shall be
comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are adjacent to or face two or
more public streets at least 15% of each façade adjacent to or facing a public street
shall be comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are not adjacent to
or face a public street, but instead face or front a private drive, the facade that faces or
fronts on the private drive that provides for primary access shall be considered as
the front facade;
Or
b) Windows and doors may be spread around the building, the minimum amount of
required windows or glass doors is calculated as 30% of the front façade (façade
adjacent to or facing a public street). For buildings that are adjacent to or facing two
or more public streets the minimum amount of required windows or glass doors is
calculated as 20% of the total area of the façades adjacent to or facing public streets.
4. Articulation and architectural features
a) Horizontal articulations or offsets are required on any wall greater in length than 100
linear feet, which is adjacent to or facing a public street.
(1) The depth of the articulation or offset shall be a minimum of two feet (2’).
Articulations or offsets can be of varying depth as long as the minimum two feet
(2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or offset shall be a
minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
b) Vertical articulations or elevation changes are required on all walls and should be
designed to screen rooftop equipment.
(1) The height of the articulation or elevation change shall be a minimum of two feet
(2’). Articulations or elevation changes can be of varying depth as long as the
minimum two feet (2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or elevation change shall
be a minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
5. Roof Treatments
Façade articulations shall provide for vertical and horizontal screening of air conditioning
units and all mechanical equipment located on rooftops. The minimum height of the
screening shall be equal to the height of the tallest rooftop equipment.
D. Commercial Buildings
1. Applicability
This section shall apply to buildings with a commercial use.
2. Exterior Building Materials
Buildings must comply with the following:
a) At least 80% of each wall (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following primary materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Tile
Stuccob
Concrete tiltwallc
Split face CMUc.
b) Stucco may be used in conjunction with one of the other approved primary materials.
Stucco cannot be used for more than 50% of each façade.
c) Concrete tiltwall and split face CMU may be used in conjunction with one of the
other approved primary materials. Concrete tiltwall and split face CMU cannot be
used for more than 30% of each façade.
3. Glazing
All buildings must comply with one of the following:
a) At least 30% of the front façade (façade adjacent to or facing a public street) shall be
comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are adjacent to or face two or
more public streets at least 30% of each façade adjacent to or facing a public street
shall be comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are not adjacent to
or face a public street, but instead face or front a private drive, the facade that faces or
fronts on the private drive that provides for primary access shall be considered as
the front facade;
Or
b) Windows and doors may be spread around the building, the minimum amount of
required windows or glass doors is calculated as 60% of the front façade (façade
adjacent to or facing a public street). For buildings that are adjacent to or facing two
or more public streets the minimum amount of required windows or glass doors is
calculated as 50% of the total area of the façades adjacent to or facing public streets.
4. Articulation and architectural features
a) Horizontal articulations or offsets are required on any wall greater in length than 30
linear feet, which is adjacent to or facing a public street, or adjacent to or facing a
side lot line of the property.
(1) The depth of the articulation or offset shall be a minimum of two feet (2’).
Articulations or offsets can be of varying depth as long as the minimum two feet
(2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or offset shall be a
minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
b) Vertical articulations or elevation changes are required on all walls and should be
designed to screen rooftop equipment.
(1) The height of the articulation or elevation change shall be a minimum of two feet
(2’). Articulations or elevation changes can be of varying depth as long as the
minimum two feet (2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or elevation change shall
be a minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
5. Roof Treatments
Façade articulations shall provide for vertical and horizontal screening of air conditioning
units and all mechanical equipment located on rooftops. The minimum height of the
screening shall be equal to the height of the tallest rooftop equipment.
E. Office/Public Buildings
1. Applicability
This section shall apply to buildings with a professional office or public
use.
2. Exterior Building Materials
Buildings must comply with the following:
a) At least 75% of each wall (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Tile
Stucco
Concrete tiltwallb
Split face CMUb
b) Concrete tiltwall and split face CMU may be used in conjunction with one of the
other approved primary materials. Concrete tiltwall and split face CMU cannot be
used for more than 30% of each façade.
3. Glazing
All buildings must comply with one of the following:
a) At least 25% of the front façade (façade adjacent to or facing a public street) shall be
comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are adjacent to or face two or
more public streets at least 20% of each façade adjacent to or facing a public street
shall be comprised of windows or glass doors. For buildings that are not adjacent to
or face a public street, but instead face or front a private drive, the facade that faces or
fronts on the private drive that provides for primary access shall be considered as
the front facade;
Or
b) Windows and doors may be spread around the building, the minimum amount of
required windows or glass doors is calculated as 50% of the front façade (façade
adjacent to or facing a public street). For buildings that are adjacent to or facing two
or more public streets the minimum amount of required windows or glass doors is
calculated as 40% of the total area of the façades adjacent to or facing public streets.
4. Articulation and architectural features
a) Horizontal articulations or offsets are required on any wall greater in length than 50
linear feet.
(1) The depth of the articulation or offset shall be a minimum of two feet (2’).
Articulations or offsets can be of varying depth as long as the minimum two feet
(2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or offset shall be a
minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
b) Vertical articulations or elevation changes are required on all walls and should be
designed to screen rooftop equipment.
(1) The height of the articulation or elevation change shall be a minimum of two feet
(2’). Articulations or elevation changes can be of varying depth as long as the
minimum two feet (2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or elevation change shall
be a minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
5. Roof Treatments
Façade articulations shall provide for vertical and horizontal screening of air conditioning
units and all mechanical equipment located on rooftops. The minimum height of the
screening shall be equal to the height of the tallest rooftop equipment.
F. Multi-Family Buildings
1. Applicability
This section shall apply to buildings with a Multifamily Use.
2. Exterior Building Materials
Buildings must comply with one of the following:
a) At least 80% of each wall (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Tile
Or
b) 100% of the front façade (façade adjacent to or facing a public street) and a total of
80% of the entire building (excluding windows and doors) shall be finished in one or
more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Tile
3. Articulation and architectural features
a) Horizontal articulations or offsets are required on any wall greater in length than 10
linear feet.
(1) The depth of the articulation or offset shall be a minimum of two feet (2’).
Articulations or offsets can be of varying depth as long as the minimum two feet
(2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or offset shall be a
minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
b) Vertical articulations or elevation changes are required on all walls and should be
designed to screen rooftop equipment.
(1) The height of the articulation or elevation change shall be a minimum of two feet
(2’). Articulations or elevation changes can be of varying depth as long as the
minimum two feet (2’) is met.
(2) The length of the new plane created by the articulation or elevation change shall
be a minimum of 20% of the total length of the entire wall.
4. Roof Treatments
Façade articulations shall provide for vertical and horizontal screening of air
conditioning units and all mechanical equipment located on rooftops. The minimum
height of the screening shall be equal to the height of the tallest rooftop equipment.
G. Single- Family Residential
1. Exterior Building Materials
Buildings must comply with the following:
a) At least 80% of the entire building façade (excluding windows and doors) shall be
finished in one or more of the following materials:
Brick
Stone
Faux brick or stone
Tile
Concrete tiltwall
Stucco
Fiber cement siding
Article 9 – Site Design Standards
Schertz Unified Development Code
B. Other Markers
All other survey markers, such as lot corners, shall have an iron stake one-half
inch (1/2”) in diameter and twenty-four inches (24”) long and shall be placed
flush with the ground, or below ground, if necessary, in order to avoid being
disturbed.
C. Benchmarks
A minimum of two (2) benchmarks shall be established in each subdivision.
Benchmarks shall be established on iron rods embedded in concrete monuments
six inches (6”) in diameter and set in the ground to a depth of three feet (3’) and
set to U.S. National Geodetic Survey datum. Using tops of manholes as a
benchmark is not acceptable.
D. Monument Placement and Verification
Monuments and lot markers shall be set immediately after completion of utility
installations and street construction. Prior to acceptance of subdivision
improvements by the City, the developer’s surveyor or engineer shall certify that
all monuments, benchmarks and markers are in place and correctly positioned.
Sec. 21.9.5 Exterior Construction and Design Standards
A. Intent
It is the intent of these design criteria to provide guidelines for new construction
in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance as well as ensure sound
construction quality.
B. Applicability
The provisions of this section are deemed to be minimum standards and shall be
applicable to all new buildings within the corporate limits of the City.
C. Multifamily and Nonresidential Exterior Material Requirements
1. At least thirty percent (30%) of the front façade shall provide, on the
ground level floor, windows and doors that allow for visibility into the
commercial building or store. Industrial buildings located within the M-1
and M-2 zoning districts may have fifteen percent (15%) of the front
façade as windows and doors.
2. All structures shall have a front façade constructed of a minimum of one-
hundred percent (100%) masonry, excluding doors and windows. All
other façades shall be constructed of a minimum of seventy-five percent
(75%) masonry, excluding doors and windows.
Updated 12/10/2013 9-4
Article 9 – Site Design Standards
Schertz Unified Development Code
3. Masonry material shall be defined as that form of exterior construction
material consisting of brick, stone, stucco, cemetatious fiberboard, split
face concrete masonry units, concrete with an aggregate finish and faux
stone or brick.
D. Multifamily and Nonresidential Façade Articulation
The structure shall include articulation in the walls and roof design. Single,
uninterrupted surface planes shall be prohibited. The roof of the structure may be
a flat roof construction, but shall provide a variation of the roofline, which may
include a pitched roof for architectural relief.
1. Horizontal Articulation
No building wall shall extend for a distance equal to two (2) times the
wall’s height without having an offset of fifteen percent (15%) of the
wall’s height, and that new plane shall extend for a distance equal to at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of the maximum length of the first plane.
2. Vertical Articulation
No horizontal wall shall extend for a distance greater than two (2) times
the height of the wall without changing height by a minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) of the wall’s height.
3. Façade Articulations
Façade articulations shall provide for vertical and horizontal screening of
air conditioning units and all mechanical equipment located on roof tops.
E. Residential Exterior Material Requirements
For all new residential buildings excluding multifamily structures, the total
exterior surface area of the structure, excluding doors, windows, and roofs shall
be constructed of a minimum eighty percent (80%) masonry.
Sec. 21.9.6 Reserved
Sec. 21.9.7 Landscaping
A. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish landscaping requirements to enhance
the community’s ecological, environmental, and beautification efforts as well as
its aesthetic qualities. It is the intent of this section to reduce the negative effects
of glare, noise, erosion, and sedimentation caused by expanses of impervious and
un-vegetated surfaces within the urban environment. It is the intent of this section
Updated 12/10/2013 9-5
Agenda No. 3
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: Engineering
Subject: Resolution No. 15-R-72 - A Resolution by the City
of Schertz authorizing a Project Agreement with Ford
Engineering, Inc., for expenditures totaling no more
than $4,000 for a variety of small consulting tasks
during the remainder of the 2014-15 Fiscal Year and
other matters in connection therewith
BACKGROUND
The City has contracted with Ford Engineering, Inc., for various projects throughout the 2014-2015
Fiscal Year and the congregate value of the project agreements is greater than $50,000. The City’s
Purchasing Policy, adopted and approved by City Council by Resolution 11-R-14, outlines the need
for City Council approval for any expenditure over $50,000 in one fiscal year with one vendor.
The Engineering Department has a periodic need for engineering and/or surveying services with very
limited scope. It is desired that Staff have the ability to request consulting services to be provided and
invoiced on an hourly basis as needed. An example of this is Staff’s need to request assistance with a
capacity analysis of the Tri County Lift Station.
Goal
To obtain authorization from City Council to contract with Ford Engineering, Inc., to provide
professional engineering and/or surveying services in an amount not to exceed $4,000.
Community Benefit
Because of Ford’s history with and knowledge of City infrastructure and processes, the company
can provide the necessary assistance with a limited amount of Staff direction and therefore
delivers a high level of value for these types of tasks.
Summary of Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council authorize Staff to enter into a project agreement with Ford
Engineering, Inc., for hourly consulting engineering and surveying services as needed for the
remainder of Fiscal Year 2014-15.
FISCAL IMPACT
The not to exceed amount of $4,000 is currently available in the Engineering Department Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 15-R-72.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution 15-R-72
Project Agreement with Ford Engineering, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-72
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING A PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH
FORD ENGINEERING, INC., FOR EXPENDITURES TOTALING NO
MORE THAN $4,000 FOR A VARIETY OF SMALL CONSULTING
TASKS DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE 2014-15 FISCAL YEAR
AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City of Schertz (the “City”) requires professional engineering and
surveying services for the completion of various separate and unrelated tasks; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that Ford Engineering, Inc., is qualified to provide
such services for the City; and
WHEREAS, Ford Engineering, Inc., is an approved On-Call Engineering Service for the
City of Schertz; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
contract with Ford Engineering, Inc. pursuant to the Professional Services Agreement for
Engineering Services attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes City Staff to request the completion of tasks by
Ford Engineering, Inc., to be invoiced on an hourly basis in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for
the remainder of Fiscal Year 2014-15.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and
deliver the Agreement with Ford Engineering, Inc., in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit
A. Services will be provided on an hourly basis for various tasks and expenditures shall not
exceed $4,000 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2014-15.
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
- 2 -
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 Xth day of August, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
(CITY SEAL)
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 1
CITY OF SCHERTZ
PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into in the City of Schertz, Texas, between the City of Schertz, a
Texas municipal corporation, hereinafter called “CITY” and/or “OWNER”, and
“CONSULTANT” Ford Engineering, Inc. 10927 Wye Dr. Suite 104, San Antonio, TX 78217.
Engineer(s), duly licensed, and practicing under the laws of the State of Texas, hereinafter called
“CONSULTANT”, this Agreement being executed by City pursuant to appropriate action by the
City Council of CITY and by CONSULTANT, for engineering services hereinafter set forth in
connection with the above designated Project for CITY.
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS
ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
ARTICLE 3 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
ARTICLE 4 METHOD OF PAYMENT
ARTICLE 5 TIME, SCHEDULE, AND PERIOD OF SERVICE
ARTICLE 6 COORDINATION WITH CITY
ARTICLE 7 REVISIONS TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
ARTICLE 8 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION AND/OR SUPENSION OF WORK
ARTICLE 10 CONSULTANT’S WARRANTY
ARTICLE 11 ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF INTEREST
ARTICLE 12 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
ARTICLE 13 INDEMNIFICATION
ARTICLE 14 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES
ARTICLE 15 SEVERABILITY
ARTICLE 16 ESTIMATES OF COST
ARTICLE 17 INTEREST IN CITY CONTRACTS PROHIBITED
ARTICLE 18 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
ARTICLE 19 STANDARD OF CARE
ARTICLE 20 RIGHT OF REVIEW AND AUDIT
ARTICLE 21 ENTIRE AGREEMENTS
ARTICLE 22 VENUE
ARTICLE 23 NOTICES
ARTICLE 24 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
ARTICLE 25 CAPTIONS
ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT SCOPE OF SERVICES
ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT DESIGN PHASES COST AND TIMELINE
ATTACHMENT 3 BILLING RATE SCHEDULE
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 2
ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS
AS USED IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE MEANINGS
AS SET OUT BELOW:
Agreement means this Master Agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT that
establishes the terms and conditions for all Projects to be carried out under this
Agreement.
Application for Compensation means the form CONSULTANT uses to make a request
to be paid for completed services.
Application for Payment means the form CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR uses to
make a request to be paid for completed work.
Certificate for Payment means the form CONSULTANT uses to make
recommendations on CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR’S Application for Payment.
CITY means the City of Schertz, Texas.
Claim means a demand or assertion by one of the parties seeking, as a matter of right,
adjustment, or interpretation of the terms of this Agreement, payment of money,
extension of time, or other relief with respect to the terms of this Agreement. The term
“claim” also includes other disputes and matters in question between the OWNER and
CONSULTANT arising out of or relating to this Agreement.
Compensation means amounts paid by CITY to CONSULTANT for completed services
under this Agreement.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR means the firm hired by CITY to construct the
Project.
Construction Contract Documents means the contract between the CITY and the firm
contracted by CITY to construct the Project and all documents therein.
CONSULTANT means the entity named on the cover page of this Agreement and its
officers, partners, employees, agents, and representatives, and all its subconsultants, if
any, and all other persons or entities for which CONSULTANT is legally responsible.
ENGINEER means CITY’s City Engineer.
Final Compensation means the final amounts paid by CITY to CONSULTANT for
completed services under this Agreement.
Final Payment means the final amounts paid by CITY to CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR for completed work under the construction contract.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 3
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost means CONSULTANT’S estimate of probable
construction cost for a Project based on its experience and qualifications as a practitioner
of its profession and the current costs in the local area.
OWNER means the City of Schertz, Texas.
Payment means amount paid by CITY to CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR for work
performed under the Construction Contract Documents.
Plans and Specifications means the construction documents.
Project means the capital improvement/construction development undertaking of CITY
for which CONSULTANT’S services, as stated in the Scope of Services, and to be
provided pursuant to this Agreement.
Proposal means CONSULTANT’S proposal to provide services for the Project.
Schedule of Values means the fees allocated to services, reimbursable and/or various
portions of the services or Work, prepared in such form, and supported by such data to
substantiate its accuracy as OWNER may require.
Scope of Services means the services described in Article 4, Scope of Services.
Services means professional services performed by CONSULTANT.
Total Compensation means the amount paid to CONSULTANT under Article 2,
Compensation for Basic Services, of this Agreement.
Work means the labor and materials required to complete a Project by
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR in accordance with the Construction Contract
Documents.
ARTICLE 2: SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 CONSULTANT shall not commence work until being thoroughly briefed on the scope of
the Project and being notified in writing to proceed. The scope of the Project and
CONSULTANT'S Services required shall be reduced by CONSULTANT to a written
summary of the scope meeting. That Scope of Services and associated time schedule,
along with cost, once approved by CITY, will be included as a part of this Agreement as
Attachments 1 and 2 herein. Should the scope subsequently change, either
CONSULTANT or CITY may request a review of the anticipated services, with an
appropriate adjustment in compensation.
2.2 Communications by and with CONSULTANT'S subconsultants shall be through
CONSULTANT. Communications by and with subcontractors and material suppliers shall
be through CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 4
2.3 CONSULTANT, in consideration for the Compensation herein provided, shall render the
professional Services described in this Section that are necessary for the development of
the Project, including plans and specifications, construction management services, any
special and general conditions, and instructions to bidders as acceptable to the Engineer,
or his or her duly authorized representative.
2.4 CONSULTANT shall complete a Project in accordance with the following phases and
CONSULTANT'S Scope of Services attached and incorporated herein as Attachments 1
and 2.
2.4.1 PROJECT DESIGN PHASES
2.4.2 Preliminary Engineering Report
2.4.3 30% Design
2.4.4 60% Design
2.4.5 90% Design
2.4.6 Bid Documents and Services
2.4.7 Construction Phase Services
2.4.8 Project Close Out and Final Payment
2.5 Upon acceptance and approval of the plans, reports or other deliverables required for a
Phase of work, as set forth in the Scope of Services, Engineer shall authorize
CONSULTANT, in writing, to proceed with the next phase of Work.
2.6 During Design Phases CONSULTANT shall:
2.6.1 Coordinate and meet with City staff and Project stakeholders as appropriate
throughout the Project. Assist staff at meetings with stakeholders, workshops,
and presentations to advisory commissions and City Council.
2.6.2 Provide the necessary field survey services to determine the existing field
conditions, including all utilities and surface features to the maximum extent
possible.
2.6.3 CONSULTANT shall make every effort to minimize utility adjustments, where
possible.
2.6.4 In the event electrical, communication, gas or other facilities are encountered,
CONSULTANT shall identify and incorporate those facilities at the completion of
each Project Phase in order to determine the magnitude of any potential
adjustment.
2.6.5 Perform the necessary testing to determine the existing site conditions and proper
design for construction and methods of any necessary demolition.
2.6.6 Follow and comply with the requirements for the Design Phases listed in this
Agreement, CITY’S Unified Development Code, if applicable, and CITY’S
Design Guidance Manual, both of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 5
2.6.7 In case of conflicts, follow and comply with the most stringent requirements for
the Design Phases.
2.6.8 Prepare documents for, and coordinate with other utilities and associated local,
state, and federal agencies (including TCEQ, EPA, TxDOT, ACOE, etc.) as
required for the approval of all necessary permits (determined during scoping for
each individual project).
2.6.9 Provide detailed plans and specifications for the Project at appropriate progress
intervals in requested formats (may include hard copy, .pdf, and .dwg).
2.6.10 Provide Opinion of Probably Construction Cost.
2.7 During Bid Phase CONSULTANT shall:
2.7.1 Provide unit price bid quantities in City bid form format for use in bid documents.
2.7.2 Provide bid sets of contract, technical specifications, plans, and any other
necessary documents in hard copy and digital format.
2.7.3 Attend pre-bid conference and prepare responses to questions and addenda as
necessary.
2.7.4 Research qualifications and references of apparent low bidder(s) and provide a
letter of recommendation for contract award.
2.8 During Construction Phase:
2.8.1 CONSULTANT shall monitor construction schedule.
2.8.2 CONSULTANT will make a minimum of two visits per month to the Project Site
at intervals appropriate to the Phases to (1) become generally familiar with and to
keep CITY informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work
completed, and (2) endeavor to guard CITY against defects in Work. However,
CONSULTANT will not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site
inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work.
2.8.3 CONSULTANT will neither have control over or charge of, nor be responsible
for, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for
the safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work since these are
solely CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR’S rights and responsibilities under the
Contract Documents. CONSULTANT'S efforts will be directed toward providing
for CITY a greater degree of confidence that the completed Work will generally
conform to the Contract Documents.
2.8.4 CONSULTANT will not be responsible for CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR’S failure to perform the Work in accordance with the
requirements of the Contract Documents. CONSULTANT will not have control
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 6
over or charge of and will not be responsible for acts or omissions of
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR, subcontractors, or their agents or
employees, or any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work.
2.8.5 CONSULTANT and CITY have authority to reject Work that does not conform to
the Contract Documents. Whenever CONSULTANT or CITY considers it
necessary or advisable, either CITY or CONSULTANT may require inspection or
testing of the Work whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or
completed. However, neither this authority of CONSULTANT or CITY, nor a
decision made by either, in good faith, to require or not require an inspection shall
give rise to a duty or responsibility of CONSULTANT or CITY to
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR, subcontractors, material and equipment
suppliers, agents or employees, or other persons or entities performing portions of
the Work.
2.8.6 CONSULTANT will review and approve or take other appropriate action upon
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR'S submittals such as Shop Drawings,
Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for
conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the
Contract Documents. CONSULTANT will respond to submittals such as Shop
Drawings, Product Data, and Samples pursuant to the procedures set forth in the
Project specifications. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose
of determining the accuracy and completeness of equipment or systems, all of
which remain the responsibility of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR as
required by the Contract Documents. CONSULTANT'S review of
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR’S submittals shall not relieve
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR of its obligations. CONSULTANT'S review
shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or any construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures unless otherwise specifically stated
by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT'S approval of a specific item shall not
indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component.
2.8.7 CONSULTANT will, within three work days after receipt of CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR’S Application for Payment review the Application for Payment
and either issue to OWNER and/or the affected utility a Certificate for Payment
for such amount as CONSULTANT determines is properly due, or notify
OWNER, any affected utility, and CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR in writing
of CONSULTANT’S reasons for withholding recommendation of approval in
whole or in part.
2.8.8 CONSULTANT’S issuance of a Certificate for Payment will constitute a
representation by CONSULTANT to OWNER, based on CONSULTANT’S
evaluation of the Work and the data comprising the Application for Payment, that
the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that, to the best of
CONSULTANT’S knowledge, information and belief, the quality of the work is
in accordance with the design agreement documents or Construction Contract
Documents. The foregoing representations are subject to an evaluation of the
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 7
Work for conformance with the design agreement documents, to results of
subsequent tests and inspections, to correction of minor deviations from the
design agreement documents prior to completion, and to any specific
qualifications expressed by CONSULTANT. The issuance of a Certificate for
Payment based on the CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR’S Application for
Payment will further constitute a representation that CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR is entitled to payment in accordance with the Schedule of
Values. The issuance of Certificate for Payment will not be a representation that
CONSULTANT has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to
check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions
received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by
OWNER to substantiate Construction Contractor’s right to payment, or (4) made
any examination to ascertain how or for what purpose CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR has used money previously paid on account of the Application
for Payment sum.
2.8.9 CONSULTANT may recommend withholding an approval for Payment in whole
or in part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect OWNER if, in
CONSULTANT’S opinion, the representations to OWNER required by Section
4.13 cannot be made. If CONSULTANT is unable to recommend approval of
payment in the amount of the Application, CONSULTANT will notify OWNER
and CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR as provided in Section 4.12. If OWNER
and CONSULTANT cannot agree on a revised amount, CONSULTANT will
promptly issue a Certificate for Payment for the amount for which
CONSULTANT is able to make such representations to OWNER.
CONSULTANT may also recommend withholding a Payment, because of
subsequently discovered evidence, may modify the whole or a part of a Certificate
for Payment to such extent as may be necessary, in CONSULTANT’S opinion, to
protect OWNER and the affected utility from loss for which CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR is responsible, including loss resulting from acts and omissions
described below:
2.8.9.1 defective Work not remedied;
2.8.9.2 third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable
filing of such claims for which CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR is
responsible hereunder unless security acceptable to OWNER and the
affected utility is provided by CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR;
2.8.9.3 failure of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR to make payments
properly to the subcontractors and/or material providers;
2.8.9.4 reasonable evidence that the Work cannot be completed for the unpaid
balance of the agreement sum and CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
has failed to provide OWNER and the affected utility adequate
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 8
assurance of its continued performance within a reasonable time after
demand;
2.8.9.5 damage to OWNER or another contractor;
2.8.9.6 reasonable evidence that the Work will not be completed within the
agreement time, and that the unpaid balance would not be adequate to
cover actual or liquidated damages for the anticipated delay; or
2.8.9.7 persistent failure by CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR to carry out
the Work in accordance with the Construction Contract Documents.
2.8.10 When the above reasons for withholding payment are removed, payment will be
made for amounts previously withheld. OWNER shall not be deemed in default
by CONSULTANT by reason of withholding payment as provided herein.
2.8.11 CONSULTANT will prepare Change Orders and Field Work Directives, and,
with concurrence of OWNER, OWNER’S designated representative will have
authority to order minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the
Total Compensation or an extension of the time for construction. Such changes
shall be effected by written order, which CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
shall carry out promptly and record on the as-built plan.
2.8.12 Upon written request of CITY or CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR,
CONSULTANT will issue its interpretation of the requirements of the Plans and
Specifications. CONSULTANT'S response to such requests will be made in
writing within any agreed time limits or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If
no agreement is made concerning the time within which interpretations required
by CONSULTANT shall be furnished in compliance with Article IV, then delay
shall not be recognized on account of failure by CONSULTANT to furnish such
interpretations until 15 days after written request is made for CONSULTANT’S
interpretation.
2.8.13 Interpretations of CONSULTANT will be consistent with the intent of and
reasonably inferable from the Construction Contract Documents and will be in
writing or in the form of drawings.
2.8.14 CONSULTANT will advise and consult with CITY. CITY'S instructions to
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR may be issued through CONSULTANT, but
CITY reserves the right to issue instructions directly to CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR through inspectors or other designated CITY representatives.
2.8.15 CONSULTANT and CITY will conduct observations to determine the date of
substantial completion of the Work. CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY a
written recommendation of consideration of substantial completion of the Project.
2.8.16 CONSULTANT and CITY will conduct observations to determine the date of
final completion. CONSULTANT will receive and forward to CITY, for CITY'S
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 9
review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the
Construction Contract Documents and assembled by CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR, and will issue a final Approval for Payment upon compliance
with the requirements of the Construction Contract Documents. Such final
Approval will be accompanied by a signed and sealed statement from the
CONSULTANT’S Engineer of Record that certifies to CITY that the project was
constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
2.8.17 CONSULTANT shall prepare record drawings from information submitted by
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR and from CONSULTANT’S own
observations in accordance with City standards. CONSULTANT shall provide
record drawings in hard copy, .pdf, and .dwg formats to CITY.
ARTICLE 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
3.1 Basic Services
3.1.1 Compensation for all Services included in this Agreement will be on a time and
expense not-to-exceed basis in accordance with the negotiated, approved schedule
of billing rates as set forth in Attachment 3. Not-to-exceed compensation
amounts, to the extent they have been negotiated shall be reflected in Attachment
3. A Proposal including a not-to-exceed cost will be provided by
CONSULTANT along with a Scope of Services for each Project (Attachments 1
and 2). The amount to be paid to CONSULTANT, including authorized
adjustments, is the total amount payable by OWNER to CONSULTANT for
performance of the Services for the Project under this Agreement. It is agreed
and understood that such amount will constitute full compensation to
CONSULTANT for Services included in the Scope of Services and shall meet all
requirements of CITY’S design guidelines applicable to the Project. Unless and
until CITY makes further appropriations for any Services not included in the
Scope of Services of this Agreement, the obligation of CITY to CONSULTANT
for Compensation in connection with this Agreement cannot and will not exceed
the sum described in this Section without further amendment to this Agreement.
3.1.2 No billing rate changes from those approved as Attachment 3 of this Agreement
shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written
approval of CITY.
3.1.3 CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to CITY describing the Services
performed the preceding month. CONSULTANT’S invoices shall include the
name of the person who performed the Service, a brief description of the Service
performed and the Phase of the Project to which the Service relates, the date(s)
the Service was performed, the number of hours spent on all Services billed on an
hourly basis, and a description of any subconsultant fees and/or reimbursable
expenditures.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 10
3.1.4 CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by
CITY. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include
nothing more than the following costs incurred by CONSULTANT:
3.1.4.1 Approved reproduction charges,
3.1.4.2 Actual costs of subconsultant(s) for performance of any of the Services
that CONSULTANT agrees to provide pursuant to this Agreement,
which have been approved in advance by CITY and awarded in
accordance with this Agreement.
3.1.4.3 Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized
in advance by the CITY in writing and incurred by CONSULTANT in
the performance of this Agreement.
3.1.5 CONSULTANT shall complete the Project in accordance with the following
phases. For the purpose of establishing portions of compensation for separate
phases, more particularly described in the Scope of Services, Attachment 2 shall
apply.
Preliminary Engineering Report
30% Design
60% Design
90% Design
Bid Documents and Services
Construction Phase Services
Project Close Out and Final Payment
3.1.6 CONSULTANT shall, within 10 days following receipt of Compensation from
OWNER, pay all bills for Services performed and furnished hereunder by
subconsultant(s) of CONSULTANT in connection with the Project and the
performance of services and shall, if requested, provide OWNER with evidence
of such payment. CONSULTANT'S failure to make payments within such time
shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement unless CONSULTANT is
able to demonstrate to OWNER bona fide disputes associated with the Services of
the unpaid subconsultant and its services. CONSULTANT shall include a
provision in each of its sub agreements imposing the same payment obligations on
its subconsultants as are applicable to CONSULTANT hereunder, and if OWNER
so requests, shall provide evidence of such payments by CONSULTANT to
OWNER. If CONSULTANT has failed to make payment promptly to the
subconsultant for undisputed Services for which OWNER has made payment to
CONSULTANT, OWNER shall be entitled to withhold future payment to
CONSULTANT to the extent remaining unpaid by CONSULTANT necessary to
protect OWNER.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 11
3.1.7 CONSULTANT warrants that title to all deliverables produced in the
performance of Services covered by an Application for Compensation will pass to
OWNER no later than the time of payment. CONSULTANT further warrants that
upon submittal of an Application for Compensation, all Services for which
Applications for Compensation have been previously issued and payments
received from OWNER shall, to the best of CONSULTANT'S knowledge,
information and belief be free and clear of liens, claims, security interests or
encumbrance in favor of CONSULTANT, or other persons or entities under
contract with CONSULTANT making a claim by reason of having provided labor
or services relating to CONSULTANT’S Services. CONSULTANT SHALL
INDEMNIFY AND HOLD OWNER HARMLESS FROM ANY LIENS,
CLAIMS, SECURITY INTEREST OR ENCUMBRANCES FILED BY
ANYONE CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER THE ITEMS COVERED
BY PAYMENTS MADE BY OWNER TO CONSULTANT.
3.2 Additional Services
3.2.1 CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for additional Services
without prior written authorization of CITY. Compensation for duly authorized
additional Services shall be paid in accordance with the approved schedule of
billing rates as set forth in Attachment 3.
3.2.2 Examples of additional Services (not all inclusive)
3.2.2.1 Assistance to CITY as an expert witness in any litigation with third
parties arising from the development of construction of a Project
including the preparation of engineering data and reports.
3.2.2.2 Preparation of plats and field notes for acquisition of property.
3.2.2.3 Preparation of applications and supporting documents for governmental
grants, loans, or advances in connection with a Project; preparation of
review of environmental assessment and impact statements; review and
evaluation of the effect on the design requirements of a Project of any
such statements and documents prepared by others; and assistance in
obtaining approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the
anticipated environmental impact of a Project.
3.2.2.4 Making revisions in drawings, specifications, or other documents when
such revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions
previously given, are required by the enactment or revision of codes,
laws, or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents or
are due to other causes not solely within the control of
CONSULTANT.
3.2.2.5 Making revisions to drawings or specifications occasioned by
acceptance of substitutions proposed by CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR; and Services after the award of each contract in
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 12
evaluating and determining the acceptability of an unreasonable or
excessive number of substitutions proposed by CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR.
3.2.2.6 Preparing drawings, specifications, and supporting data and providing
other Services in connection with change order requests to the extent
that the adjustment in the basic compensation resulting from the
adjusted construction cost is not commensurate with the Services
required of CONSULTANT, provided such change order requests are
required by causes not solely within the control of CONSULTANT; or
in connection with change orders requiring significant engineering
effort to compute and document the Work effort reflected by the
Change Order.
3.2.2.7 Investigations, surveys, valuations, inventories, or detailed appraisals of
facilities, construction and/or services not required by Project scope.
3.2.2.8 Investigations, surveys, audit, or inventories required in connection
with construction performed by CITY.
3.2.2.9 Additional Services during construction made necessary by:
3.2.2.9.1 Work damaged by fire or other cause during construction.
3.2.2.9.2 A significant amount of defective or neglected work of
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR.
3.2.2.9.3 Failure of performance of CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR.
3.2.2.9.4 Acceleration of the progress schedule required by CITY
involving Services beyond normal working hours.
3.2.2.9.5 Default by CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR.
3.2.2.10 Providing extensive assistance in the use of any equipment or system
such as initial start-up or testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation
of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation
and maintenance, and consultation during operation.
3.2.2.11 Providing Services relative to future facilities, systems, and equipment
which are not intended to be constructed during the Construction Phase.
3.2.2.12 Services after completion of the Construction Phase, such as
inspections during any guarantee period and reporting observed
deficiencies under guarantee called for in any contract for a Project.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 13
3.2.2.13 Providing Services of geotechnical engineering firm to perform test
borings and other soil or foundation investigations and related analysis
not included in original Scope of Services for a Project.
3.2.2.14 Additional copies of Construction Contract Documents, review
documents, bidding documents, reports, and or drawings over the
number specified in the original Scope of Services for a Project.
3.2.2.15 Preparation of all documents dealing with 404 permits and railroad
agreements.
3.2.2.16 Providing photographs, renderings, or models for CITY use.
3.2.2.17 Providing aerial mapping Services.
3.2.2.18 Providing consulting engineering Services not related to a particular
design or construction Project.
3.3 All Applications for Compensation shall be submitted through Engineer’s office.
ARTICLE 4: METHOD OF PAYMENT
4.1 Compensation may be made to CONSULTANT as appropriately indicated on monthly
Applications for Compensation prepared based on hourly rates, not to exceed amounts
estimated for each phase, as described in Article 2 and Attachments 1 and 2 hereof.
4.2 Project Close Out and Final Payment –
4.2.1 CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to final payment unless and until it submits
to OWNER its affidavit that the invoices for services, and other liabilities
connected with the services for which OWNER, or OWNER’S property, might be
responsible have been fully paid or otherwise satisfied or will be paid from final
payment; releases and waivers of liens from all CONSULTANT’S subconsultants
and of any and all other parties required by OWNER that are either unconditional
or conditional on receipt of final payment; certificates of insurance showing
continuation of required insurance coverage; such other documents as OWNER
may request; and consent of surety to final payment.
4.2.2 Final Compensation – The final compensation to be made by CITY to
CONSULTANT will be payable upon submission of the “Record Drawings”.
CONSULTANT agrees to submit “Record Drawings: in print media, electronic
format (.pdf and .dwg formats) and final billing within 45 days of final acceptance
of construction. Additionally, CONSULTANT agrees to submit a statement of
release with the final billing notifying CITY that there is no further compensation
owed to CONSULTANT by CITY beyond the final bill. Final billing shall
indicate “Final Bill – no additional compensation is due to CONSULTANT”.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 14
4.3 OWNER may withhold compensation to such extent as may be necessary, in OWNER'S
opinion, to protect OWNER from damage or loss for which CONSULTANT is
responsible, because of,
4.3.1 delays in the performance of CONSULTANT'S services;
4.3.2 third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of such
claims unless security acceptable to OWNER is provided by CONSULTANT;
4.3.3 failure of CONSULTANT to make payments properly to subconsultants or
vendors for labor, materials or equipment;
4.3.4 reasonable evidence that CONSULTANT’S work cannot be completed for the
amount unpaid under this Agreement;
4.3.5 damage to OWNER or CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR; or
4.3.6 persistent failure by CONSULTANT to carry out the performance of its Services
in accordance with this Agreement.
4.4 When the above reasons for withholding are removed or remedied by CONSULTANT,
compensation of the amount withheld will be made within a reasonable time. OWNER
shall not be deemed in default by reason of withholding compensation as provided for in
this Article.
4.5 In the event of any dispute(s) between the parties regarding the amount properly payable
for any Phase or as final Compensation, or regarding any amount that may be withheld by
OWNER, CONSULTANT shall be required to make a claim pursuant to and in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement and follow the procedures provided herein
for the resolution of such dispute. In the event CONSULTANT does not initiate and
follow the claims procedures provided in this Agreement in a timely manner and as
required by the terms thereof, any such claim shall be waived.
4.6 OWNER shall make final compensation for all sums due CONSULTANT not more than
30 days after CONSULTANT’S final Application for Compensation.
4.7 Acceptance of final compensation by CONSULTANT shall constitute a waiver of claims
except those previously made in writing and identified by CONSULTANT as unsettled at
the time of final Application for Compensation.
4.8 CONSULTANT agrees to maintain adequate books, payrolls and records satisfactory to
OWNER and all applicable utility providers in connection with any and all Services
performed hereunder. CONSULTANT agrees to retain all such books, payrolls and
records (including data stored in computer) for a period of not less than four years after
completion of Work. At all reasonable times, OWNER and all applicable utility providers
and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to all personnel of
CONSULTANT and all such books, payrolls and records, and shall have the right to audit
same.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 15
ARTICLE 5: TIME, SCHEDULE, AND PERIOD OF SERVICE
5.1 Prior to commencement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a schedule of Project
Design Phases, Attachment 2.
5.2 Time is of the essence of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall perform and complete its
obligations for the various Phases of a Project under Section 4, Scope of Services, of this
Agreement in a prompt and continuous manner so as to not delay the development of the
design Services and so as to not delay the construction of the work for the Project in
accordance with the schedules approved by CITY with CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR. Upon review of phase Services, if corrections, modifications,
alterations, or additions are required of CONSULTANT, these items shall be completed
by CONSULTANT before that Phase is approved.
5.3 CONSULTANT shall not proceed with the next appropriate Phase of Services without
written authorization from the Engineer. CITY may elect to discontinue
CONSULTANT'S Services at the end of any Phase for any reason. Notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Agreement, if circumstance dictates, the Engineer may make
adjustments to the scope of CONSULTANT'S obligations at any time to achieve the
required design.
5.4 CONSULTANT shall not be liable or responsible for any delays due to strikes, riots, acts
of God, national emergency, acts of the public enemy, governmental restrictions, laws or
regulations, or any other causes beyond CONSULTANT'S reasonable control. Within 21
days from the occurrence of any event for which time for performance by
CONSULTANT will be significantly extended under this provision, CONSULTANT
shall give written notice thereof to CITY stating the reason for such extension and the
actual or estimated time thereof. If CITY determines that CONSULTANT is responsible
for the need for extended time, CITY shall have the right to make a Claim as provided in
this Agreement.
5.5 Term of Agreement shall be as follows:
5.5.1 This Agreement shall become effective upon full execution and shall remain in
effect until satisfactory completion of the Project unless terminated as provided
for in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6: COORDINATION WITH CITY
6.1 CONSULTANT shall hold periodic conferences with the Engineer or his or her
representatives to the end that the Project as developed shall have the full benefit of
CITY'S experience and knowledge of existing needs and facilities, and be consistent with
its current policies and standards. To assist CONSULTANT in this coordination, CITY
shall make available for CONSULTANT'S use in planning and designing the Project all
existing plans, maps, statistics, computations and other data in its possession relative to
existing facilities and to this particular Project, at no cost to CONSULTANT. However,
any and all such information shall remain the property of CITY and shall be returned by
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 16
CONSULTANT upon termination or completion of the Project or if instructed to do so by
the Engineer.
6.2 The Engineer will act on behalf of CITY with respect to the Services to be performed
under this Agreement. The Engineer shall have complete authority to transmit
instructions, receive information, interpret and define CITY’S policies and decisions with
respect to materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to CONSULTANT'S
services.
6.3 CITY will give prompt written notice to CONSULTANT whenever CITY observes or
otherwise become aware of any defect in CONSULTANT'S Services, in the work of
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR, or any development that affects the scope or timing
of CONSULTANT'S Services.
6.4 All appraisals, notices, and permits shall be furnished by CONSULTANT under the Scope
of Services unless otherwise assigned to CITY in the Scope of Services, Approvals and
permits assigned to CITY shall be obtained from all governmental authorities having
jurisdiction over the Project and such approvals and consents from others as may be
necessary for the completion of the Project. CONSULTANT will provide CITY
reasonable assistance in connection with such approvals and permits such as the
furnishing of data compiled by CONSULTANT pursuant to other provisions of this
Agreement, but CONSULTANT shall not be obligated to develop additional data, prepare
extensive reports or appear at hearings or the like unless compensated therefore under
other provisions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 7: REVISIONS TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
7.1 CONSULTANT shall make without expense to CITY such revisions to the drawings,
reports or other documents as may be required to meet the needs of CITY which are
within the Scope of Services, but after the approval of drawings, reports or other
documents and specifications by CITY, any revisions, additions, or other modifications
made at CITY'S request which involve extra services and expenses to CONSULTANT
shall be at additional compensation to CONSULTANT for such additional Services and
expenses in accordance with Article 3 herein.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 17
ARTICLE 8: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
8.1 All previously owned documents, including the original drawings, estimates,
specifications, and all other documents and data by CONSULTANT, will remain the
property of CONSULTANT as instruments of service. However, CONSULTANT
understands and agrees that CITY shall have free access to all such information with the
right to make and retain copies of previously owned drawings, estimates, specifications
and all other documents and data. Any reuse without specific written verification or
adaptation by CONSULTANT will be at CITY'S sole risk and without liability or legal
exposure to CONSULTANT.
8.2 All completed documents submitted by CONSULTANT for final approval or issuance of
a permit shall bear the seal with signature and date adjacent thereto of a registered
professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Texas.
8.3 CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that upon payment, CITY shall own
exclusively any and all information in whatsoever form and character produced and/or
maintained in accordance with, pursuant to, or as a result of this Agreement and shall be
used as CITY desires and documents, including the original drawings, estimates,
specifications and all other documents and data shall be delivered to CITY at no
additional cost to CITY upon request or termination or completion of this Agreement
without restriction on future use. However, any reuse without specific written verification
or adaptation by CONSULTANT will be at CITY'S sole risk and without liability to
CONSULTANT.
8.4 CONSULTANT agrees and covenants to protect any and all proprietary rights of CITY in
any materials provided to CONSULTANT. Such protection of proprietary rights by
CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the inclusion in any copy intended for
publication of copyright mark reserving all rights to CITY. Additionally, any materials
provided to CONSULTANT by CITY shall not be released to any third party without the
written consent of CITY and shall be returned intact to CITY upon termination or
completion of this Agreement or if instructed to do so by the Engineer.
8.5 CONSULTANT HEREBY ASSIGNS ALL STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW
COPYRIGHTS TO ANY COPYRIGHTABLE WORK THAT IN PART OR IN
WHOLE WAS PRODUCED FROM THIS AGREEMENT TO CITY, INCLUDING
ALL EQUITABLE RIGHTS. NO REPORTS, MAPS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER
COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS PRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THIS
AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR COPYRIGHT
BY CONSULTANT. ALL REPORTS, MAPS, PROJECT LOGOS, DRAWINGS OR
OTHER COPYRIGHTABLE WORK PRODUCED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT
SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF CITY (EXCLUDING ANY PRIOR
OWNED INSTRUMENT OF SERVICES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
HEREIN). CONSULTANT SHALL, AT ITS EXPENSE, INDEMNIFY CITY AND
DEFEND ALL SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST CITY AND
PAY ANY AWARD OF DAMAGES OR LOSS RESULTING FROM AN
INJUNCTION, AGAINST CITY, INSOFAR AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON ANY
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 18
CLAIM THAT MATERIALS OR WORK PROVIDED UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT, TRADE
SECRET, TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.
8.6 CONSULTANT may make copies of any and all documents and items for its files.
CONSULTANT shall have no liability for changes made to or use of the drawings,
specifications and other documents by other engineers, or other persons, subsequent to the
completion of the Project. CONSULTANT shall appropriately mark all changes or
modifications on all drawings, specifications and other documents by other engineers or
other persons, including electronic copies, subsequent to the completion of the Project.
8.7 Copies of documents that may be relied upon by CITY are limited to the printed copies
(also known as hard copies) and .pdf-format electronic versions that are sealed and signed
by CONSULTANT. Files in editable electronic media format of text, data, graphics, or
other types (such as .dwg) that are furnished by CONSULTANT to CITY are only for
convenience of CITY or any utility. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived
from such electronic files will be at the user's sole risk. Any reuse without specific written
verification or adaptation by CONSULTANT will be at CITY'S sole risk and without
liability to CONSULTANT.
8.8 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, all previously owned
intellectual property of CONSULTANT, unless expressly purchased by CITY, including
but not limited to any computer software (object code and source code), tools, systems,
equipment or other information used by CONSULTANT or its suppliers in the course of
delivering the Services hereunder, and any know-how, methodologies, or processes used
by CONSULTANT to provide the services or protect deliverables to CITY, including
without limitation, all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other
proprietary rights inherent therein and appurtenant thereto shall remain the sole and
exclusive property of CONSULTANT or its suppliers.
ARTICLE 9: TERMINATION AND/OR SUSPENSION OF WORK
9.1 Right of Either Party to Terminate for Default
9.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for substantial failure by the
other party to perform (through no fault of the terminating party) in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement and a failure to cure as provided in this Article
9.
9.1.2 The party not in default must issue a signed, written notice of termination (citing
this paragraph) to the other party declaring the other party to be in default and
stating the reason(s) why they are in default. Upon receipt of such written notice
of default, the party in receipt shall have a period of ten days to cure any failure to
perform under this Agreement. Upon the completion of such 10-day period
commencing upon receipt of notice of termination, if such party has not cured any
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 19
failure to perform, such termination shall become effective without further written
notice.
9.2 Right of CITY to Terminate
9.2.1 CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for reasons other than
substantial failure by CONSULTANT to perform by issuing a signed, written
notice of termination (citing this paragraph) which shall take effect on the
twentieth day following receipt of said notice or upon the scheduled completion
date of the performance Phase in which CONSULTANT is then currently
working, whichever effective termination date occurs first.
9.3 Right of CITY to Suspend Giving Rise to Right of CONSULTANT to Terminate
9.3.1 CITY reserves the right to suspend this Agreement at the end of any Phase for the
convenience of CITY by issuing a signed, written notice of suspension (citing this
paragraph) which shall outline the reasons for the suspension and the expected
duration of the suspension, but such expected duration shall in no way guarantee
what the total number of days of suspension will occur. Such suspension shall
take effect immediately upon receipt of said notice of suspension by
CONSULTANT.
9.3.1.1 CONSULTANT is hereby given the right to terminate this Agreement
in the event such suspension extends for a period in excess of 120 days.
CONSULTANT may exercise this right to terminate by issuing a
signed, written notice of termination (citing this paragraph) to CITY
after the expiration of 120 days from the effective date of the
suspension. Termination (under this paragraph) shall become effective
immediately upon receipt of said written notice by CITY.
9.4 Procedures CONSULTANT Shall Follow upon Receipt of Notice of Termination
9.4.1 Upon receipt of a notice of termination and prior to the effective date of
termination, unless the notice otherwise directs or CONSULTANT immediately
takes action to cure a failure to perform under the cure period set out in this
Article. CONSULTANT shall immediately begin the phase-out and the
discontinuance of all services in connection with the performance of this
Agreement and shall proceed to promptly cancel all existing orders and contracts
insofar as such orders and contracts are chargeable to this Agreement. Within 30
days after receipt of such notice of termination (unless CONSULTANT has
successfully cured a failure to perform) CONSULTANT shall submit a statement
showing in detail the Services performed under this Agreement prior to the
effective date of termination. CITY shall have the option to grant an extension to
the time period for submittal of such statement.
9.4.2 Copies of all completed or partially completed specifications and all
reproductions of all completed or partially completed designs, plans and
attachments prepared under this Agreement prior to the effective date of
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 20
termination shall be delivered to CITY, in the form requested by CITY as a
precondition to final payment. These documents shall be subject to the restrictions
and conditions set forth in Article IX above.
9.4.3 Upon the above conditions being met, CITY shall promptly pay CONSULTANT
that proportion of the prescribed Compensation which the Services actually
performed under this Agreement bear to the total Services called for under this
Agreement, less previous payments of the Compensation.
9.4.4 CITY, as a public entity, has a duty to document the expenditure of public funds.
CONSULTANT acknowledges this duty on the part of CITY. To this end,
CONSULTANT understands that failure of CONSULTANT to comply with the
submittal of the statement and documents as required above shall constitute a
waiver by CONSULTANT of any and all rights or claims for compensation for
services performed under this Agreement by CONSULTANT.
9.4.5 Failure of CONSULTANT to comply with the submittal of the statement and
documents as required above shall constitute a waiver by CONSULTANT of any
and all rights or claims to collect monies that CONSULTANT may otherwise be
entitled to for services performed under this Agreement.
9.5 Procedures CONSULTANT Shall Follow upon Receipt of Notice of Suspension
9.5.1 Upon receipt of written notice of suspension, which date shall also be the
effective date of the suspension, CONSULTANT shall, unless the notice
otherwise directs, immediately begin to phase-out and discontinue all services in
connection with the performance of this Agreement and shall proceed to promptly
suspend all existing orders and contracts insofar as such orders and contracts are
chargeable to this Agreement.
9.5.2 CONSULTANT shall prepare a statement showing in detail the Services
performed under this Agreement prior to the effective date of suspension.
9.5.3 Copies of all completed or partially completed designs, plans, and specifications
prepared under this Agreement prior to the effective date of suspension shall be
prepared for possible delivery to CITY but shall be retained by CONSULTANT
until such time as CONSULTANT may exercise the right to terminate.
9.5.4 In the event that CONSULTANT exercises the right to terminate 120 days after
the effective suspension date, within 30 days after receipt by CITY of
CONSULTANT'S notice of termination, CONSULTANT shall promptly cancel
all existing orders and contracts insofar as such orders and contracts are
chargeable to this Agreement and shall submit the above referenced statement
showing in detail the services performed under this Agreement prior to the
effective date of suspension.
9.5.5 Any documents prepared in association with this Agreement shall be delivered to
CITY as a precondition to final payment.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 21
9.5.6 Upon the above conditions being met, CITY shall pay CONSULTANT that
proportion of the prescribed Compensation which the Services actually performed
under this Agreement bear to the total Services called for under this Agreement,
less previous payments of Compensation.
9.5.7 CITY, as a public entity, has a duty to document the expenditure of public funds.
CONSULTANT acknowledges this duty on the part of CITY. To this end,
CONSULTANT understands that failure of Consultant to substantially comply
with the submittal of the statements and documents as required herein shall
constitute a waiver by CONSULTANT of any portion of the Compensation for
which CONSULTANT did not supply such necessary statements and/or
documents.
ARTICLE 10: CONSULTANT’S WARRANTY
10.1 CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person
other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT to solicit or secure
this Agreement, and that it has not, for the purpose of soliciting or securing this
Agreement, paid or agreed to pay any company or person, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the
award or making of this Agreement. For breach of this warranty, CITY shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement under the provisions of Article 9 above.
ARTICLE 11: ASSSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF INTEREST
11.1 CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the prior
written consent of CITY.
ARTICLE 12: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
12.1 Prior to the commencement of any Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall
furnish copies of all required endorsements and an original completed Certificate(s) of
Insurance to CITY'S Engineering Department, which shall be clearly identified with the
name of the Project in the Description of Operations block of the Certificate. The original
Certificate(s) shall be completed by an agent and signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. CITY will not accept Memorandum of Insurance or
Binders as proof of insurance. The original certificate(s) or form must have the agent's
original signature, including the signer's company affiliation, title and phone number, and
be mailed, with copies of all applicable endorsements, directly from the insurer's
authorized representative to CITY. CITY shall have no duty to pay or perform under this
Agreement until such certificate and endorsements have been received and approved by
CITY'S Engineering Department. No officer or employee other than CITY'S Risk
Manager shall have authority to waive this requirement.
12.2 CITY reserves the right to review the insurance requirements of this Article during the
effective period of this contract and any extension or renewal hereof and to request
modification of insurance coverage’s and their limits when deemed necessary and prudent
by CITY'S Risk Manager based upon changes in statutory law, court decisions, or
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 22
circumstances surrounding this contract. In no instance will CITY allow modification
whereupon CITY may incur increased risk.
12.3 CONSULTANT’S financial integrity is of interest to CITY. Therefore, subject to
CONSULTANT'S right to maintain reasonable deductibles in such amounts as are
approved by CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect for
the duration of this Agreement, and any extension hereof, at CONSULTANT'S sole
expense, insurance coverage written on an occurrence or claims made basis, as
appropriate, by companies authorized and approved to do business in the State of Texas
and with an A.M. Best's rating of no less than A- (VII), in the following types and for an
amount not less than the amount listed:
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Worker’s Compensation*
Employer’s Liability
Statutory
$1,000,000/$1,000,000/$1,000,000
Commercial General (Public) Liability
insurance to include coverage for the
following:
a. Premises Operations
b. Independent Contractors**
c. Products/Completed Operations
d. Personal Injury
e. Contractual Liability
For Bodily Injury and Property Damage of
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
$2,000,000 General Aggregate, or its equivalent
in Umbrella or Excess Liability Coverage
Business Automobile Liability
a. Owned/Leased Vehicles
b. Non-owned Vehicles
c. Hired Vehicles
Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and
property Damage of $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability (Claims Made Form) $1,000,000 per claim to pay on behalf of the
insured all sums, which the insured shall
become legally obligated to pay as damages to
the extent caused by any negligent act, error, or
omission in the performance of professional
services.
*Alternate Plans must be approved by CITY’S Risk Manager
**If applicable
12.4 CITY may request and without expense to CITY, to inspect copies of the policies,
declarations page and all endorsements thereto as they apply to the limits required by
CITY, and may request the deletion, revision, or modification of particular policy terms,
conditions, limitations or exclusions (except where policy provisions are established by
law or regulation binding upon either of the parties hereto or the underwriter of any such
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 23
policies). CONSULTANT shall attempt to comply with any such requests, subject to the
policy terms and conditions, and shall submit a copy of the replacement certificate of
insurance to CITY at the address provided below within 10 days of the requested change,
in the event the respective insurance companies approve the requested change(s).
CONSULTANT shall pay any costs incurred resulting from said changes.
City of Schertz
Attn: City Engineer
10 Commercial Place
Schertz, TX 78154
12.5 CONSULTANT agrees that with respect to the above required insurance, all insurance
policies are to contain or be endorsed to contain the following required provisions:
12.5.1 Name CITY and its officers, officials, employees, and elected representatives as
additional insured’s by endorsement, as respects operations and activities of, or on
behalf of, the named insured performed under contract with CITY, with the
exception of the workers’ compensation and professional liability policies;
12.5.2 Provide for an endorsement that the “other insurance” clause shall not apply to the
CITY where CITY is an additional insured shown on the policy if such
endorsement is permitted by law and regulations;
12.5.3 Workers' compensation and employers' liability policies will provide a waiver of
subrogation in favor of CITY; and
12.5.4 Provide 30 calendar days advance written notice directly to CITY of any
suspension, cancellation or non-renewal or material change in coverage, and not
less than 10 calendar days advance written notice for nonpayment of premium.
12.6 Within five calendar days after a suspension, cancellation or non-renewal of coverage,
CONSULTANT shall provide a replacement Certificate of Insurance and applicable
endorsements to CITY. CITY shall have the option to suspend CONSULTANT'S
performance should there be a lapse in coverage at any time during this Agreement.
Failure to provide and to maintain the required insurance shall constitute a material breach
of this Agreement.
12.7 If CONSULTANT fails to maintain the aforementioned insurance, or fails to secure and
maintain the aforementioned endorsements, CITY may obtain such insurance, and deduct
and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the
agreement; however, procuring of said insurance by CITY is an alternative to other
remedies CITY may have and is not the exclusive remedy for failure of CONSULTANT
to maintain said insurance or secure such endorsement. In addition to any other remedies
CITY may have upon CONSULTANT'S failure to provide and maintain any insurance or
policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, CITY shall have
the right to order CONSULTANT to stop performing services hereunder and/or withhold
any payment(s) which become due to CONSULTANT hereunder until CONSULTANT
demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 24
12.8 Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which
CONSULTANT may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property
resulting from CONSULTANT'S or its subconsultant's performance of the Services
covered under this Agreement.
12.9 It is agreed that CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be deemed primary with respect to any
insurance or self insurance carried by CITY for liability arising out of operations under
this Agreement.
12.10 It is understood and agreed that the insurance required is in addition to and separate from
any other obligation contained in this Agreement as respects additional insured’s.
ARTICLE 13: INDEMNIFICATION
13.1 CONSULTANT, WHOSE WORK PRODUCT AND SERVICES ARE THE
SUBJECT OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AGREES
TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD CITY, ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, OFFICERS,
AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES HARMLESS AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
BY THIRD PARTIES, LAWSUITS, JUDGMENTS, COST, LIENS, LOSSES,
EXPENSES, FEES (INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
COSTS OF DEFENSE), PROCEEDINGS, ACTIONS, DEMANDS, CAUSES OF
ACTION, LIABILITY AND SUITS OF ANY KIND AND NATURE, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY (INCLUDING DEATH),
PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR OTHER HARM FOR WHICH RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES IS SOUGHT THAT MAY ARISE OUT OF OR BE OCCASIONED OR
CAUSED BY A NEGLIGENT ACT, ERROR, OR OMISSION OF CONSULTANT,
ANY AGENT, OFFICER, ENGINEER, REPRESENTATIVE, EMPLOYEE,
CONSULTANT OR SUBCONSULTANT OF CONSULTANT, AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE OFFICERS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, ENGINEERS AND
REPRESENTATIVES WHILE IN THE EXERCISE OF PERFORMANCE OF
THE SERVICES, RIGHTS OR DUTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. THE
INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT APPLY TO
ANY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF CITY, ITS
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, IN INSTANCES WHERE SUCH NEGLIGENCE
CAUSES PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. IN THE
EVENT CONSULTANT AND CITY ARE FOUND JOINTLY LIABLE BY A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, LIABILITY SHALL BE
APPORTIONED COMPARATIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, WAIVING ANY
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AVAILABLE TO CITY UNDER TEXAS LAW
AND WITHOUT WAIVING ANY DEFENSES OF THE PARTIES UNDER TEXAS
LAW.
13.2 CONSULTANT shall advise CITY in writing within 24 hours of any claim or demand
against CITY or CONSULTANT, known to CONSULTANT, related to or arising out of
CONSULTANT’S activities under this Agreement.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 25
13.3 The provisions of Article 13 are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not
intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to any other person or
entity.
13.4 Acceptance of the final plans by CITY shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the
responsibility and liability of CONSULTANT, its employees, associates, agents or
subcontractors for the accuracy and competency of their designs, work drawings, Plans
and Specifications or other documents and Work; nor shall such acceptance be deemed an
assumption of responsibility or liability by CITY for any defect in the designs, work
drawings, Plans and Specifications or other documents and Work prepared by
CONSULTANT, its employees, subconsultants, and agents.
ARTICLE 14: CLAIMS AND DISPUTES
14.1 Definition. A Claim is a demand or assertion by one of the parties seeking, as a matter of
right, adjustment or interpretation of this Agreement’s terms, payment of money, and
extension of time or other relief with respect to the terms of this Agreement. The term
“Claim” also includes other disputes and matters in question between OWNER and
CONSULTANT arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Claims must be initiated by
written notice. Every Claim of CONSULTANT, whether for additional Compensation,
additional time, or other relief, shall be signed and sworn to by an authorized corporate
officer (if not a corporation, then an official of the company authorized to bind
CONSULTANT by signature) of CONSULTANT, verifying the truth and accuracy of the
Claim. The responsibility to substantiate Claims shall rest with the party making the
Claim.
14.2 Time Limit on Claims. Claims by CONSULTANT or by OWNER must be initiated
within 30 calendar days after occurrence of the event giving rise to such Claim. Claims by
CONSULTANT must be initiated by written notice to OWNER. Claims by the OWNER
must be initiated by written notice to CONSULTANT.
14.3 Continuing Contract Performance. Pending final resolution of a Claim except as otherwise
agreed in writing, CONSULTANT shall proceed diligently with performance of this
Agreement and OWNER shall continue to make payments in accordance with this
Agreement.
14.4 Claims for Additional Time. If CONSULTANT wishes to make Claim for an increase in
the time for performance, written notice as provided in this Article 14 shall be given.
CONSULTANT'S Claim shall include an estimate of probable effect of delay on progress
of the Work. In the case of a continuing delay only one Claim is necessary.
14.5 Claims for Consequential Damages. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, in
calculating the amount of any Claim or any measure of damages for breach of contract
(such provision to survive any termination following such breach), the following
standards will apply both to claims by CONSULTANT and to claims by OWNER:
14.5.1 No consequential damages will be allowed.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 26
14.5.2 Damages are limited to extra costs specifically shown to have been directly
caused by a proven wrong for which the other party is claimed to be responsible.
14.5.3 No profit will be allowed on any damage claim.
14.6 No Waiver of Governmental Immunity. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO WAIVE OWNER’S GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
FROM LAWSUIT, WHICH IMMUNITY IS EXPRESSLY RETAINED TO THE
EXTENT IT IS NOT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY WAIVED BY STATE
LAW.
ARTICLE 15: SEVERABILITY
15.1 If for any reason, any one or more paragraphs of this Agreement are held invalid or
unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect, impair or invalidate the
remaining paragraphs of this Agreement but shall be confined in its effect to the specific
section, sentences, clauses or parts of this Agreement held invalid or unenforceable, and
the invalidity or unenforceability of any section, sentence, clause or parts of this
Agreement in any one or more instance shall not affect or prejudice in any way the
validity of this Agreement in any other instance.
ARTICLE 16: ESTIMATES OF COST
16.1 Since CONSULTANT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment or
over CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR’S methods of determining prices, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions, CONSULTANT’S opinions of probable Project
Cost or Construction Cost provided for herein are to be made on the basis of
CONSULTANT’S experience and qualifications and represent CONSULTANT’S best
judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry but
CONSULTANT cannot and does not guarantee that bids or the construction cost will not
vary from opinions of probable Cost prepared by CONSULTANT.
ARTICLE 17: INTEREST IN CITY CONTRACTS PROHIBITED
17.1 No officer or employee of CITY shall have a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in
any contract with CITY, or shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale
to CITY of any land, materials, supplies or service, except on behalf of CITY as an officer
or employee. This prohibition extends to other CITY boards and commissions, which are
more than purely advisory. The prohibition also applies to subcontracts on CITY projects.
17.2 CONSULTANT acknowledges that it is informed that the Charter of CITY prohibits a
CITY officer or employee, as those terms are defined in the Ethics Code, from having a
financial interest in any contract with CITY or any CITY agency.
17.3 CONSULTANT warrants and certifies, and this Agreement is made in reliance thereon,
that it, its officers, employees and agents are neither officers nor employees of CITY.
CONSULTANT further warrants and certifies that it has tendered to CITY a
Discretionary Contracts Disclosure Statement.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 27
ARTICLE 18: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
18.1 All consultants must disclose if it is associated in any manner with a CITY official or
employee in a business venture or business dealings. To be "associated" in a business
venture or business dealings includes being in a partnership or joint venture with the
officer or employee, having a contract with the officer or employee, being joint owners of
a business, owning at least 10% of the stock in a corporation in which a CITY officer or
employee also owns at least 10%, or having an established business relationship as client
or customer.
ARTICLE 19: STANDARD OF CARE
19.1 Services provided by CONSULTANT under this Agreement will be performed in a
manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of
the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances.
19.2 CONSULTANT shall be represented by a registered professional engineer licensed to
practice in the State of Texas at meetings of any official nature concerning the Project,
including but not limited to scope meetings, review meetings, pre-bid meetings, and
preconstruction meetings.
19.3 The Texas Board of Professional Engineers, 1917 IH-35 South, Austin, Texas 78741,
(512) 440-7723 has jurisdiction over individuals licensed under Title 22 of the Texas
Administrative Code.
19.4 Acceptance of the final plans by CITY shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the
responsibility and liability of CONSULTANT, its employees, associates, agents, or
subcontractors for the accuracy and competency of their designs, work drawings, Plans
and Specifications or other documents and Work; nor shall such acceptance be deemed an
assumption of responsibility or liability by CITY for any defect in the designs, work
drawings, Plans and Specifications or other documents and Work prepared by
CONSULTANT, its employees, subconsultants, and agents.
ARTICLE 20: RIGHT OF REVIEW AND AUDIT
20.1 CONSULTANT agrees that CITY may review any and all of the work performed by
CONSULTANT UNDER THIS Agreement. CITY is granted the right to audit, at
CITY’S election, all of CONSULTANT’S records and billings related to performance of
this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to retain such records for a minimum of four
years following completion of this Agreement. Any payment, settlement, satisfaction, or
release provided under this Agreement shall be subject to CITY’S rights as may be
disclosed by such audit.
ARTICLE 21: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
21.1 This Agreement, together with Attachments 1, 2, and 3, represents the entire and
integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 28
negotiations, representations, or agreements, either oral or written. This Agreement may
be amended only by written instrument signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.
ARTICLE 22: VENUE
22.1 The obligations of the parties to this Agreement shall be performable in the City of
Schertz or its Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, located in Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe
Counties, Texas, and if legal action, such as civil litigation, is necessary in connection
therewith, exclusive venue shall lie in Guadalupe County, Texas.
ARTICLE 23: NOTICES
23.1 Except as may be provided elsewhere herein, all notices, communications, and reports
required or permitted under this Contract shall be personally delivered or mailed to the
respective party by depositing the same in the United States Postal Service addressed to
the applicable address shown below, unless and until either party is otherwise notified in
writing by the other party of a change of such address. Mailed notices shall be deemed
communicated as of five calendar days of mailing. Notices provided via email shall be
deemed communicated as of the next business day after the notice is sent.
If intended for CITY, to: City of Schertz
Engineering Department
10 Commercial Place
Schertz, Texas 78154
If intended for CONSULTANT, to: The address listed on the first page of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 24: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
24.1 In performing services under this Agreement, the relationship between CITY and
CONSULTANT is that of independent contractor. By the execution of this Agreement,
CONSULTANT and CITY do not change the independent contractor status of
CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall exercise independent judgment in performing its
duties and obligations under this Agreement and is solely responsible for setting working
hours, scheduling or prioritizing the work flow and determining how the Services are to be
performed. No term or provision of this Agreement or act of CONSULTANT in the
performance of this Agreement shall be construed as making CONSULTANT the agent,
servant or employee of CITY, or as making CONSULTANT or any of its agents or
employees eligible for any fringe benefits, such as retirement, insurance and worker’s
compensation, which CITY provides to or for its employees.
ARTICLE 25: CAPTIONS
25.1 The captions for the individual provisions of this Agreement are for informational
purposes only and shall not be construed to effect or modify the substance of the terms
and conditions of this Agreement to which any caption relates.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 29
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement hereby execute this Agreement
effective as of __________________, 20___ (the “Effective Date”).
CITY OF SCHERTZ CONSULTANT
CITY MANAGER Consultant Name
TITLE
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 30
ATTACHMENT 1
PROJECT SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project:
Professional Engineering and/or Surveying Services for Various Tasks
Scope of Services:
The Professional shall provide hourly engineering and/or surveying services as requested by City
Staff. The Professional shall advise and make recommendations to City Staff regarding a variety
of issues and attend meetings as requested.
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 31
ATTACHMENT 2
PROJECT DESIGN PHASES COST AND TIMELINE
PROJECT PHASE ESTIMATED COST TIME IN CALENDAR
DAYS
Preliminary Engineering Report NA NA
30% Design NA NA
60% Design NA NA
90% Design NA NA
Bid Phase NA NA
Construction Phase including
Closeout NA NA
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
(NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT)$4,000.00
Item 3B FEI Various Tasks Project Agreement Page 32
ATTACHMENT 3
BILLING RATE SCHEDULE
DISCIPLINE HOURLY RATE
Principals $200.00
Sr. Civil Engineers (PE) (Sr. Project Managers) $165.00
Civil Engineers (PE) (Project Managers) $150.00
Project Coordinators (EIT) $ 95.00
Design Techs $ 90.00
CADD Technicians $ 85.00
Clerical Staff $ 65.00
Licensed State Land Surveyor (LSLS) $165.00
Registered Professional Land Surveyors (RPLS) $150.00
Survey Technicians/CADD $ 85.00
One-Person Survey Crew $125.00
Two-Person Survey Crew $145.00
Three-Person Survey Crew $165.00
Four-Person Survey Crew $185.00
PROPERTY RESEARCH & DOC. SVC.
Property Research $75.00
(Copies additional cost)
Agenda No. 4
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: Engineering
Subject: Ordinance No. 15-T-26 – An ordinance by
the city council of the city of Schertz, Texas
authorizing a budget adjustment for
construction of the Woodland Oaks
Retaining Wall in the amount of $134,800.
(First Reading)
BACKGROUND
A condition assessment was performed on the existing railroad tie retaining wall along the right
of way line at the northwest corner of the intersection of Woodland Oaks Drive and Woodbridge
Way. The wall was determined to be partially failing and in need of replacement. On March 10,
2015, City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam, Inc., (LAN) to design a replacement wall.
Final construction plans have been received and bid documents are currently being prepared for
construction of the new wall. LAN provided an Opinion of Probable Construction Costs of
$117,570.
The estimated budget for the project is as follows:
Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall Construction Budget
Construction Phase Professional Services: $ 5,000
Construction: $118,000
Contingency: $ 11,800
Total: $134,800
Funds have been identified that will be unused by the end of Fiscal Year 2014-15. Due to a
position vacancy in the Engineering Department, Personnel Services and Staff Support of
$95,500 will be unused. The Street Maintenance Budget can provide an additional $39,300 to
make up the difference.
Goal
Approve Ordinance 15-T-26 to allocate $134,800 for this project out of the General Fund of the
City’s Budget for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year.
Community Benefit
Construction of the new retaining wall will allow the sidewalk on Woodland Oaks Drive that has
been closed for over a year to be reopened. The new wall will be constructed of concrete and is
designed to have a long life with little maintenance required.
Summary of Recommended Action
Staff recommends Council approve the first reading of Ordinance 15-T-26 to budget $134,800
from the General Fund for the Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall Construction Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of the project is $134,800. The proposed Ordinance 15-T-26 will allocate the
full amount of funding from unused funds budgeted in the FY 2014-15 General Fund. $95,500
will come from Engineering Department Personnel Services and Staff Support. $39,300 will
come from Streets Maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve the first reading of Ordinance 15-T-26 to budget $134,800
for the Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall Construction Project. The funding will come from the
General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance 15-T-26
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
ORDINANCE NO. 15-T-26
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WOODLAND OAKS RETAINING WALL
CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,800; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH
THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 14-T-42, the City of Schertz (the “City”) adopted the
budget for the City for the fiscal year 2014-2015 (the “Budget), which provides funding for the
City’s operations throughout the 2014-2015 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City needs to provide funding for construction of the Woodland Oaks
Retaining Wall; and
WHEREAS, the City has unused funds of $95,500 in the Engineering Departmental
Budget due to an unfilled, funded vacancy; and
WHEREAS, the City has unused funds of $39,300 in the Street Maintenance Budget; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council of the City adjust the Budget
and approve the funding of the Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall Construction Project from the
General Fund of $134,800; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has determined that it is in the best interest of
the City to adjust the Budget for FY 2014-2015;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS:
Section 1. The City shall approve the funding of a total budget in the amount of
$134,800 which will be set aside for the Woodland Oaks Retaining Wall Construction Project.
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 Ordinance for all purposes and are adopted as a part
of the judgment and findings of the Council.
Section 3. All ordinances and codes, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or
inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall be and remain controlling as to the matters
resolved herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws
of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
- 2 -
Section 5. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance and the application of
such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City
hereby declares that this Ordinance would have been enacted without such invalid provision.
Section 6. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this
Ordinance 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 Ordinance, was
given, all as required by Chapter 551, as amended, Texas Government Code.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of final adoption hereof and
any publication required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS,
THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED on first reading, this the 11 day of August, 2015.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on second and final reading, this the _____
day of __________, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
(CITY SEAL)
Item
No.
Spec.
No.DescriptionUnits
Estimated
Quantities
Estimated
Unit Price Subtotal
1.0101502‐1MobilizationLS1 10,200.00$ $10,200.00
1.0201555‐1Traffic Control and RegulationLS1 3,000.00$ $3,000.00
1.0301570‐1Storm Water Pollution Prevention PlanLS1 3,000.00$ $3,000.00
1.0401740‐1Furnish and Install Wood FenceLF156 50.00$ $7,800.00
1.0502221‐1Remove SidewalkSY141 15.00$ $2,115.00
1.0602221‐2Remove Retaining WallLS1 12,000.00$ $12,000.00
1.0702233‐1Remove FenceLF156 3.00$ $468.00
1.0802233‐2Clearing and GrubbingAcre0.05 20,000.00$ $1,000.00
1.0902631‐16" AWWA C 900 PVC PipeLF6 50.00$ $300.00
1.1002632‐1Nyloplast 8" Inline DrainEA1 1,000.00$ $1,000.00
1.1102771‐1Concrete Curb and GutterLF73 20.00$ $1,460.00
1.1202775‐1Concrete Sidewalk SY175 40.00$ $7,000.00
1.1302835‐1Retaining WallSF1,394 45.00$ $62,730.00
1.1402922‐1SoddingSY333 4.00$ $1,332.00
1.15TxDOT 432‐6001RIPRAP (CONC)(4 IN)CY7.3 350.00$ $2,555.00
1.16TxDOT 610‐6002RELOCATE RD IL ASM (SHOE‐BASE)EA1 1,650.00$ $1,650.00
1.17TxDOT 644‐6068RELOCATE SM RD SN SUP&AM TY 10BWGEA1 460.00$ $460.00
Project Total$118,070.00
City of Schertz, Tx
Woodland Oaks/Woodbridge Way Ret. Wall Struct.
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Base Bid: Base
August 3, 2015
*Cost Estimates based on preliminary design
estimates and are subject to change Page 1 of 1
Agenda No. 5
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: Public Works
Subject: Resolution No. 15-R-73 -
Water/Wastewater Rate Study
BACKGROUND
Mr. Dan Jackson, with WillDan Financial Services formally Economists.com performed the
City’s Water/Wastewater Rate Study in 2013. The City of Schertz requested Dan Jackson to
review our water and sewer rates and recommend a five-year rate schedule based on projected
operating expenses, capital expenses and debt service for the next five years, including rate
increases from CCMA, SSLGC, and CVLGC.
Goals
To have a 5-year rate schedule that will result in a balanced budget with minimal increases as
allowed.
Community Benefit
Continued Superior Water/Wastewater Service with scheduled incremental increases in water
and wastewater rates to avoid sudden large rate increases.
FISCAL IMPACT
This study will allow for continued collection of water rates with scheduled rate increases.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council approve the resolution for the 5-year Water/Wastewater Rate
Study and Schedule as presented by Dan Jackson. This will allow the new rates to be presented
with the FY 2015-16 Fee Schedule and subsequent Fee Schedules in future years.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution 15-R-73
Presentation – Water/Wastewater Rate Study
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-73
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF A FIVE YEAR
RATE SCHEDULE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES AND
OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the “City”) has determined that the City
needs to increase the water and wastewater rates to ensure that revenues meet fiscal year budget
expenditures for all operating expenses, capital expenses and debt service for the next five years;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
approve the five year rate schedule; attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Schedule”), to provide
necessary revenues to meet projected expenditures to maintain yearly balanced budgets while at
the same time minimizing the fiscal impact on our customers.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to approve and
deliver the five year rate schedule in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit A.
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 ____ day of _________, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
(CITY SEAL)
A-1
EXHIBIT A
5 YEAR RATE SCHEDULE
Page: 1
Water/Wastewater Rate Study
And Long-Term Financial Plan
City Council Briefing
City of Schertz
August 11 2015
Facts about Water and Wastewater Rates
in the 21st Century
Page: 2
Average utility has been increasing rates 5-
6% per year
AWWA has stated that it expects water and
ww rates across the USA to triple in the
next 15 years
Many reasons for rate increases are
beyond a City’s ability to influence
Cities that jointly share facilities can have
lower unit costs
Conclusion: higher rates are an unfortunate
but inevitable fact of life in USA
City of Schertz
Current Water Rates
Page: 3
1I -- 5/8 Inch 19.71$ 1O -- 5/8 Inch 23.87$
2I -- 3/4 Inch 29.56 2O -- 3/4 Inch 35.80
3I -- 1 Inch 49.26 3O -- 1 Inch 59.67
4I -- 1 1/2 Inch 98.53 4O -- 1 1/2 Inch 119.33
5I -- 2 Inch Compnd 157.64 5O -- 2 Inch Compnd 190.93
6I -- 2 Inch Turbine 197.05 6O -- 2 Inch Turbine 238.67
7I -- 3 Inch Compnd 315.28 7O -- 3 Inch Compnd 381.87
8I -- 3 Inch Turbine 472.92 8O -- 3 Inch Turbine 572.80
9I -- 4 Inch Compnd 492.63 9O -- 4 Inch Compnd 596.67
10I -- 4 Inch Turbine 827.62 10O -- 4 Inch Turbine 1,002.40
11I -- 6 Inch Compnd 985.26 11O -- 6 Inch Compnd 1,193.34
12I -- 6 Inch Turbine 1,812.88 12O -- 6 Inch Turbine 2,195.74
FH -- Fire Hydrants 93.64
Inside City Outside City
City of Schertz
Current Water Rates
Page: 4
Inside City Outside City
Block 1 - 6,000 2.43$ 5.26$
Block 2 6,001 9,000 2.47 5.32
Block 3 9,001 12,000 2.68 5.80
Block 4 12,001 15,000 2.89 6.24
Block 5 15,001 18,000 3.06 6.61
Block 6 18,001 30,000 3.85 8.32
Block 7 30,001 45,000 4.38 9.46
Block 8 45,001 60,000 4.66 10.07
Block 9 60,001 75,000 4.83 10.42
Block 10 75,001 Above 4.93 10.65
1I 5/8 Inch Blocks
City of Schertz
Current Wastewater Rates
Page: 5
Commercial/
Residential Institutions
Base Charge 6.83$ 8.66$
Charge/1,000 Gal:
Line Maintenance Fee 0.27 0.33
User Charge -- CCMA 3.00 3.00
Total 1-12,000 3.27 3.33
Total 12,001-Above 5.15 5.20
Water/WW Rate Comparison
10,000 Gallons Water and 5,000 Gallons WW
Page: 6
$74.72
$42.94
$80.90
$127.71
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
Sc
h
e
r
t
z
Se
l
m
a
Le
o
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
Ne
w
B
r
a
u
n
f
e
l
s
Ki
r
b
y
Sa
n
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
Un
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
C
i
t
y
Ge
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
Ro
u
n
d
R
o
c
k
Ke
r
r
v
i
l
l
e
St
a
t
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Sa
n
A
n
g
e
l
o
Se
g
u
i
n
Ci
b
o
l
o
Sa
n
M
a
r
c
o
s
Bo
e
r
n
e
City of Schertz
Residential Rate Comparison
10,000 Gallons Water & 5,000 Gallons Wastewater
Source: Municipal Websites & 2012 TML Rate Survey
Average Active Accounts
Test Year FY 2016
Page: 7
1I -- 5/8 Inch 12,612 Residential 11,427
2I -- 3/4 Inch 76 Business/MF 424
3I -- 1 Inch 209 Institutions 188
4I -- 1 1/2 Inch 133
5I -- 2 Inch Compnd 96 Total 12,039
6I -- 2 Inch Turbine 5
7I -- 3 Inch Compnd 14
9I -- 4 Inch Compnd 8
FH -- Fire Hydrants 28
1O -- 5/8 Inch 209
2O -- 3/4 Inch 2
3O -- 1 Inch 6
Total System 13,398
WATER WASTEWATER
Historical and Forecast Water Accounts
Page: 8
Total New
Accounts Accts
2011 11,067
2012 11,515 448
2013 12,015 500
2014 12,515 500
2015 13,083 568
2016 13,488 405
2017 13,893 405
2018 14,298 405
2019 14,703 405
2020 15,108 405
2021 15,513 405
2022 15,918 405
2023 16,323 405
2024 16,728 405
2025 17,133 405
Total Usage (Gallons)
FY 2016 Estimated
Page: 9
Total = 1,520,261,933
Historical and Forecast
Water Consumption
Page: 10
Gallons
Water/Wastewater Cost of Service
Test Year FY 2016
Page: 11
Total Water Wastewater
Operating Expenses
Total Business Office 717,190$ 434,364$ 282,826$
Total W&S Administration 12,048,787 6,900,842 5,147,945
Projects 812,372 649,898 162,474
Total Operating Expenses 13,578,349 7,985,104 5,593,245
Capital Outlays 232,000 163,000 69,000
Debt Service 1,469,968 680,725 789,242
Total Cost of Service 15,280,317 8,828,830 6,451,487
Less Non-Rate Revenues (2,939,727) (1,811,021) (1,128,706)
Net Revenue Requirement 12,340,590 7,017,808 5,322,781
Cost of Service Forecast Assumptions
Most operating expenses increase 3.0% per year; some
increase at additional rates based on volume/customer
account increases
Salaries increased at greater levels in 2016 and 2017 to
reach parity with other cities
WW costs reflect CCMA adopted 5 year rate adjustments
and are passed through to ratepayers via specific user
charge
Page: 12
Primary Factors Driving
Long-Term Rate Plan
Water Costs – assumptions
regarding cost, date and amounts
delivered by SSLGC from
Gonzalez and Guadalupe fields
Debt Service Costs –
assumptions regarding amount
and timing of long-term debt
required to fund capital
improvements
Page: 13
Forecast Water Purchases
2016 -- 2025
Page: 14
Forecast Water Acquisition Costs
FY 2016 – FY 2020
Page: 15
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
SSLGC -- Gonzalez 4,256,373$ 4,439,325$ 4,770,734$ 3,818,101$ 4,123,540$
SSLGC -- Guadalupe - - - 3,932,153 3,619,109
CVLGC 750,000 300,000 300,000 400,000 400,000
Total Purchases 5,006,373 4,739,325 5,070,734 8,150,254 8,142,649
Less Risk Premium - - - (1,651,440) (1,618,411)
Net Cost 5,006,373 4,739,325 5,070,734 6,498,814 6,524,238
Forecast Debt Service
Based on staff discussions, rate plan assumes that City will
issue the following debt to fund water/wastewater CIP:
Page: 16
2016 2020 2024
Principal 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$
Interest Rate 3.0%3.0%3.0%
Term 30 30 30
Total P&I
Annual 520,396 520,396 520,396
Cumulative 520,396 1,040,793 1,561,189
Water Utility
Forecast Cost of Service
Page: 17
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
WATER Utility Revenue Requirement
Operating Expenses 2,978,683$ 3,188,933$ 3,413,806$ 3,606,650$ 3,812,651$
SSLGC/CVLGC 5,006,373 4,739,325 5,070,734 8,196,181 8,234,924
Capital Outlays 163,000 167,890 172,927 178,115 183,458
Debt Service 680,725 916,257 941,682 856,054 860,122
Total Cost of Service 8,828,781 9,012,405 9,599,149 12,836,999 13,091,155
Wastewater Utility
Forecast Cost of Service
Page: 18
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
WASTEWATER Utility Revenue Requirement
Operating Expenses 2,566,534$ 2,755,959$ 2,964,976$ 3,146,633$ 3,319,235$
CCMA 3,026,759 3,280,508 3,569,858 3,887,453 4,075,320
Capital Outlays 69,000 71,070 73,202 75,398 77,660
Debt Service 789,242 1,047,411 1,157,225 1,155,839 1,154,520
Total Cost of Service 6,451,535 7,154,948 7,765,260 8,265,323 8,626,735
Proposed Rate Plan
Page: 19
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Current Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19
WATER Rates
Base Charge
5/8"19.71$ 20.89$ 21.73$ 22.60$ 23.05$ 23.51$
3/4"29.56 31.33 32.59 33.89 34.57 35.26
1"49.26 52.22 54.30 56.48 57.61 58.76
Volume Charge -- 5/8, 3/4, 1"
- 6,000 2.43 2.58 2.68 2.79 2.84 2.90
6,001 9,000 2.47 2.62 2.72 2.83 2.89 2.95
9,001 12,000 2.68 2.84 2.95 3.07 3.13 3.20
12,001 15,000 2.89 3.06 3.19 3.31 3.38 3.45
15,001 18,000 3.06 3.24 3.37 3.51 3.58 3.65
18,001 30,000 3.85 4.08 4.24 4.41 4.50 4.59
30,001 45,000 4.38 4.64 4.83 5.02 5.12 5.22
45,001 60,000 4.66 4.94 5.14 5.34 5.45 5.56
60,001 75,000 4.83 5.12 5.32 5.54 5.65 5.76
75,001 Above 4.93 5.23 5.43 5.65 5.77 5.88
WASTEWATER Rates
Residential
Base Charge 6.83$ 9.22$ 11.06$ 12.72$ 14.00$ 15.05$
Line Maintenance Fee 0.27 0.36 0.44 0.50 0.55 0.59
User Charge 3.00 3.15 3.35 3.58 3.83 3.93
Total Charge per 1,000 Gallons
- 12,000 3.27 3.51 3.79 4.08 4.38 4.52
12,001 Above 5.15 6.95 8.34 9.59 10.55 11.35
Proposed Rate Plan
Impact on Monthly Water/WW Charges
Page: 20
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Water WW Current Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19
5/8" Meter
5,000 5,000 55.04$ 60.56$ 65.12$ 69.67$ 73.17$ 75.67$
Inc 5.52 4.56 4.54 3.50 2.50
5/8" Meter
10,000 5,000 67.56 73.84 78.93 84.02 87.81 90.61
Inc 6.28 5.09 5.09 3.79 2.80
1" Meter (Business)
30,000 30,000 285.56 333.14 370.29 405.19 431.26 452.14
Inc 47.58 37.16 34.89 26.08 20.88
Presentation Summary
Why is Rate Plan Beneficial to Schertz?
Page: 21
Will enable water and wastewater utility
to be financially independent and self-
sufficient
Will ensure that ratepayers pay only what
it costs to provide service to them
Will enable City to invest $30 million in
capital improvements over next decade
Will encourage economic development
opportunities
Agenda No. 6
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: Administration/Finance
Subject: Ordinance No. 15-M-25 – Replacing Appendix
C of the Code of Ordinances – First Reading
BACKGROUND
City Departments collect a wide variety of fees for permits, services, fines and other charges that are all
part of the every day operations of municipal government. Since September 2008, the fees have been
incorporated into a single fee schedule.
Goal
To provide a single reference tool to easily review all city fees and keep true to our commitment of
financial transparency.
Community Benefit
This ordinance will provide a single document with all City fees that directly affect the users. The changes
to the fees ensures the continued operation of public utilities, provides for essential services to the
community and to adequately maintain the investment in existing infrastructure.
Summary of Recommended Action
The attached ordinance replaces Appendix C of the City code which details the fees by department and
discloses the existing and proposed rates for each type of service. These proposed rate changes will be
effective October 15, 2015, excluding the Garbage Rates which will be effective January 1st, 2016. Staff
recommends this Ordinance be approved.
FISCAL IMPACT
The majority of the proposed fee changes in the General Fund are not expected to result in significant
revenue changes. For the Water & Sewer Fund, the proposed Water and Sewer rate increases are
expected to generate the additional revenue as seen in the Water Rate Study by Economist.com. These
changes to the Water and Sewer rates are in most recent Rate Study. The Water & Sewer Fund is a self-
sustaining fund and these fee increases are necessary to support ongoing operations and maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Ordinance No. 15-M-25 on First Reading, amending
Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 15-M-_____
Fee Schedule (Exhibit “A”)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-M-25
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS AMENDING THE CITY OF SCHERTZ CODE OF ORDINANCES AND
CERTAIN OTHER ORDINANCES BY AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING FEES
FOR CERTAIN LICENSES, PERMITS, AND OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED
BY THE CITY OF SCHERTZ.
WHEREAS, the City of Schertz (the “City”) has established by ordinances and
resolutions for fees for licenses, permits, and services provided by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized a review and a consolidation of certain fees
for licenses, permits, and services provided by the City; and
WHEREAS, the Schedule of Fees attached as Exhibit A reflects revisions to certain fees,
a restatement of certain fees not revised, and a consolidation of all such fees; and
WHEREAS, due to the need for periodic modification of said fees and for the purposes
of efficiency, the City Council desires to adopt future fee changes by resolution rather
than by ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1.
All persons, firms, or corporations applying for licenses or permits or receiving other
City services described on Exhibit A that require the payment of a fee incident to such
application or service shall pay the fees as prescribed in the Fee Schedule attached hereto
as Exhibit A and made a part of hereof. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance to
conduct any activity or commence any use or receive any service for which payment of a
fee described herein is required until such fee has been paid (if required to be paid in
advance) or to fail to pay such fee when properly billed.
SECTION 2.
This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances and of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Schertz, Texas as to the fees set forth on Exhibit A effect on the
effective date of this Ordinance, except where the provisions of this Ordinance are in
direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances and such Code, in which event the
conflicting provisions of such ordinances and such Code are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3.
The City Council may, from time to time, by ordinance add to the fees set forth on
Exhibit A, and the fees now or hereafter set forth on Exhibit A may be modified from
time to time by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION 4.
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase,
clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance shall be declared
unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs, and sections of this Ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by
the City Council without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such unconstitutional
phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section.
SECTION 5.
Subject to the last sentence of this Section, any person, firm, or corporation who violates,
disobeys, omits, neglects, or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of
any of provisions of this Ordinance shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute
a separate offense. If any other ordinance, including the Code of Ordinances, establishes
a different penalty for the failure to pay any fee on Exhibit A, the provisions of such other
ordinance or the Code of Ordinances shall control with respect to such penalty.
SECTION 6.
All rights and remedies of the City are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the
provisions of the Code of Ordinances in effect on the effective date of this Ordinance and
modified by this Ordinance or any other ordinances in effect on the effective date of this
Ordinance and modified by this Ordinance and requiring the payment of fees for licenses,
permits, and other services provided by the City which have accrued on the effective date
of this Ordinance; and any and all accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil
and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, shall not be
affected by this Ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 7.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its final passage and any
publication required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ,
TEXAS, THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED on first reading, this the 11th day
of August, 2015.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on second and final reading, this the
_____ day of __________, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Dennis, City Secretary
(CITY SEAL)
Exhibit A
City of Schertz
Proposed Schedule of Fees
Effective October 12th, 2015
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Summary of Changes 2014-15 2015-16
Event Facilities
All Room Reservations
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee $50.00
Animal ServicesImpoundment Fee: An impoundment fee must be paid for each captured
animal
Dog/Cat Impoundment
Within a 1 year period
Each Additional Offense after the 4th
Base- Neutered 150.00$
Base- Un-neutered 170.00$
Per Additional Offense 50.00$
Boarding Fee: A boarding fee must be paid for each animal
Dog/Cat, per day 12.00$ 15.00$
Trap Rental Fee:
Trap Deposit, refundable when trap is returned 75.00$ 75.00$
Trap Rental Fee, per day 5.00$
Marshal's Office
Nuisance Abatement Administrative Fee 100.00$
EMS
Per Capita 13.35$ 13.75$
Inspections
Permit Fees:
Siding/Fascia 75.00$ N/C
Licenses/Registrations:150.00$ 150.00$
General Contractor (Renewal)150.00$ N/C
Master Electrician (Initial) State of Texas Issued 75.00$ N/C
Master Electrician (Renewal) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ N/C
Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 25.00$ N/C
Apprentice/Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Mechanical Contractor (Annually) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C
Plumbing Contractor (Annually)* State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Irrigation (Annually) State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Backflow Tester - State of Texas Issued 50.00$ 50.00$
Sign Contractor (Renewal)150.00$ N/C
Electrical Sign Contractor (Initial) State of Texas Issued 75.00$ N/C
Electrical Sign Contractor (Renewal) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ N/C
Electric Sign Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 25.00$ N/C
Electric Sign Apprentice/Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ 50.00$
Fire Suppression System Contractor (Annually)
No inspection fees will be charged for sites located on Main St.
REMOVE ITEM
1
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Summary of Changes 2014-15 2015-16
Sewer
User Charge-based on 100% of water consumed
Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less 3.00$ 3.15$
2
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Garbage
Residential:
Class I: Residential, Single Family, per month 11.70$ 12.05$
2 Cart pick up 17.53$ 18.05$
3 Cart Pick up 23.38$ 24.08$
4 Cart Pick up 29.22$ 30.09$
Recycling Fee, per month/container 1.93$ 1.99$
Special Pickup:
Move Ins, Special Tree Trimmings, oversize 16.30$ 16.79$
materials, & similar circumstances; minimum
Class 1A:
Residential , Front Curb, per month 17.08$ 17.59$
Class 1B:11.70$ 12.05$
Once a week residential pick-up in selected
areas. (Contractor will provide a 96 gallon
cart at no charge); per month
Class II: Mobile Home Parks 9.33$ 9.61$
Mobile Home Parks (2 or more mobile homes)
(based on number in park on the 15th day of the month),
per unit/monthly
Class III: Apartments 9.33$ 9.61$
per unit/monthly
Class IV: Motels 4.12$ 4.24$
per unit/monthly
2 Commercial
Class V: 14.81$ 15.25$
Offices, barber shops and
Professional services, per month
Class VI:25.54$ 26.30$
Light retail, wholesale, commercial
or industrial, 2000 to 4000 square feet
and excluding large grocery stores, etc., per month
Class VII: 37.09$ 38.20$
Medium retail, wholesale
commercial or industrial (2000 to 4000
square feet and exclude large grocery store, etc.), per month
2 Cart, 1 pickup per week 38.29$ 39.43$
Summary of Changes
3
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Summary of Changes
Class VIII:
Heavy Volume retail wholesale, commercial, or industrial
(placement determined by a time and cost study of
refuse generation and collection. The categories in
this class usually require hand loading from rooms or
pens and would not apply when commercial containers
are used.)
A. Two weekly pickups of 1.5 cubic yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department
stores, per month 65.91$ 67.87$
B. Two weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 131.80$ 135.73$
C. Three weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 205.95$ 212.09$
D. Four weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 247.11$ 254.47$
E. Five weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 329.49$ 339.31$
F. Six weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 411.92$ 424.20$
G. Customer requiring more than four (4) cu.
Yds each pickup would be charged per cu.
Yds. Collected., per yard 4.56$ 4.70$
4
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Summary of Changes
3. Commercial Containers.
CONTRACTOR will provide commercial containers
to those customers who desire to use them in lieu
of garbage cans. The use of such CONTRACTOR
provided containers is required by this contract.
Rates for containers and pickup will be based
on the following table:
Container Size:Frequency of Pickup
2015-16/2016-17 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 cu. Yard 57.73$ 98.30$ 118.74$ 135.74$ 152.71$ 169.66$
3 cu. Yard 69.58$ 125.52$ 173.07$ 198.47$ 223.96$ 249.39$
4 cu. Yard 86.48$ 149.34$ 203.58$ 245.99$ 288.44$ 330.85$
6 cu. Yard 122.20$ 203.58$ 279.96$ 356.33$ 432.60$ 508.97$
8 cu. Yard 144.23$ 262.97$ 364.73$ 466.56$ 569.08$ 670.17$
10 cu. Yard 166.24$ 305.35$ 432.60$ 542.94$ 653.18$ 763.44$
2013-14/2014-15 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 cu. Yard 56.06$ 95.46$ 115.30$ 131.81$ 148.29$ 164.75$
3 cu. Yard 67.57$ 121.89$ 168.06$ 192.73$ 217.48$ 242.17$
4 cu. Yard 83.98$ 145.02$ 197.69$ 238.87$ 280.09$ 321.28$
6 cu. Yard 118.66$ 197.69$ 271.86$ 346.02$ 420.08$ 494.24$
8 cu. Yard 140.06$ 255.36$ 354.18$ 453.06$ 552.61$ 650.78$
10 cu. Yard 161.43$ 296.51$ 420.08$ 527.23$ 634.28$ 741.35$
5
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Summary of Changes
4. Roll-Off Rates Per Pull Open Top Containers - Dry Material
20 cu. Yard 304.77$ 313.85$
30 cu. Yard 362.42$ 373.22$
40 cu. Yard 420.08$ 432.60$
Roll-off Rental (no pulls within billing cycle)126.02$ 129.78$
per container per month
5. Wet Material Rates on Compactor containers
or open top containers with wet material must be
negotiated with customers at the time they are
needed. This type of waste must be hauled to a
Type I landfill which generally has a higher
disposal rate attached to it.
Roll-off Container Delivery Charge per container 36.73$ 37.82$
Roll-off Relocation or Trip Charge per container 36.73$ 37.82$
2 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week)217.14$ 223.61$
Extra pick ups (2 yard compactor), each 82.33$ 84.78$
4 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week)447.33$ 460.66$
30 cu yard Compactor, per pull 551.91$ 568.36$
40 cu yard Compactor, per pull 655.71$ 675.25$
30 cu yard Open-top (Recycle), per pull 205.82$ 211.95$
Front-Load container extra pick-up charges
2 cu yard 28.01$ 28.84$
3 cu yard 35.01$ 36.05$
4 cu yard 42.02$ 43.27$
6 cu yard 49.02$ 50.48$
8 cu yard 56.02$ 57.69$
10 cu yard 63.01$ 64.89$
OVER WEIGHT CHARGE 28.09$ 28.93$
Collection and Disposal of Municipal Wastes
To address non standard requests, the solid waste contractor can negotiate a fee with
the customer requesting the service. The City will collect 15% of the negotiated fee per
the franchise agreement.
6
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
All Departments 2014-15 2015-16
Records Requests
Standard paper copy, per page 0.10$ 0.10$
(front and back is 2 pages)
Nonstandard-size copy:
Oversize paper copy (11” X 17”)0.50$ 0.50$
Specialty paper (Mylar, blueprint, blue line, map, photographic) Actual Actual
Certified Copy- Each Certification 5.00$ 5.00$
Diskette 1.00$ 1.00$
Magnetic tape - actual cost Actual Actual
Data cartridge -actual cost Actual Actual
Tape cartridge - actual cost Actual Actual
Rewritable CD (CD-RW)1.00$ 1.00$
Non-rewritable CD (CD-R)1.00$ 1.00$
Digital video disc (DVD)3.00$ 3.00$
JAZ drive - actual cost Actual Actual
Other electronic media - actual cost Actual Actual
Miscellaneous supplies - actual cost Actual Actual
Postage and shipping charge actual cost Actual Actual
Photographs - actual cost Actual Actual
Maps - actual cost Actual Actual
Labor charge:
For locating, compiling, and 15.00$ 15.00$
reproducing, per hour (if documents are
NOT located in the immediate area and over 50 pages)
Overhead charge - % of labor charge 20%20%
Remote document retrieval charge Actual Actual
No Sales Tax shall be applied to copies of public information.
Notary Fees
Acknowledgement, Certified Copies, Jurat's, Oaths and Affirmation 6.00$ 6.00$
Protests- Per Document 5.00$ 5.00$
Convenience Fees
Credit Card Payment Over Phone 1.00$ 1.00$
Return Check Fee 25.00$ 25.00$
7
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
City Secretary 2014-15 2015-16
Candidate Filing Fee 25.00$ 25.00$
Licenses
Package Store 250.00$ 250.00$
Package Store Tasing 12.50$ 12.50$
Wine & Beer Retailers 87.50$ 87.50$
Wine & Beer Retailers - Off premises 30.00$ 30.00$
Late Hours 125.00$ 125.00$
Beer on Premises 75.00$ 75.00$
Wine Only - Package Store 37.50$ 37.50$
Mix Beverage Permit 375.00$ 375.00$
Mix Beverage Late Hours 75.00$ 75.00$
Caterer's Permit 250.00$ 250.00$
Retail Dealer On-Premises - Late Hours 125.00$ 125.00$
Local Cartage 15.00$ 15.00$
8
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Non-Resident user fee- Library Card 15.00$ 15.00$
Meeting Room Fee- Non-Schertz residents, 4 hours 50.00$ 50.00$
Meeting Room Fee- After hour fee, per hour 25.00$ 25.00$
Meeting Room Cleaning Fee (Spot Cleaning)50.00$ 50.00$
Meeting Room Cleaning Fee (Whole Room)Actual Actual
Additional Fee for After Hours Cleaning, per hour 25.00$ 25.00$
Inter-Library Loans
Inter-Library Loan Postage 3.00$ 3.00$
Actual Actual
Inter-Library Loan items per day (3 day grace period)1.00$ 1.00$
Overdue Fines (3 day grace period)
All Books per day 0.25$ 0.25$
Max amount that can be charged- Adult Books, per book 5.00$ 1.00$
Max amount that can be charged- Children's Books, per book 1.00$ 1.00$
DVDs, CDs, Videos per day 0.25$ 0.25$
Max that can be charged, per item 5.00$ 1.00$
Replacement Library Card 5.00$ 5.00$
Copier, per standard page 0.15$ 0.15$
(2-sided copies are the same as 2 pages; oversized copies are the same as 2 pages)
Printing, per standard page
(2-sided copies are the same as 2 pages; oversized copies are the same as 2 pages)
Black and White 0.15$ 0.15$
Color 0.50$ 0.50$
Outgoing Fax, 1st page 1.00$ 1.00$
Per each succeeding page 0.25$ 0.25$
Lost & Damaged Materials - Cost of item
plus a processing fee 5.00$ 5.00$
Damaged DVD Case or Video Case 1.00$ 1.00$
Damaged or Missing Barcode 1.00$ 1.00$
Damaged or Missing RFID Tag 1.00$ 1.00$
Damaged or Missing DVD/Video Cover 1.00$ 1.00$
(if replaceable) plus processing fee
Toddler Tote Bag 2.50$ 2.50$
Juvenile Audiobook Bag 5.00$ 5.00$
Library
Note: if an item is lost, no late fines are assigned. If the patron loses part of the
item, they owe the full amount, and are not charged late fines. If the lost part is
returned, they will not be charged for lost materials but will then be responsible
for the previous late fines.
Inter-Library Loan Materials - Cost of item as billed by the lending library (may
include additional fines or fees assessed by the lending library)
9
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Schertz Magazine 2014-15 2015-16
Display Ads:
Eighth Page for 6 mo., per month 300$ 300$
Eighth Page for 12 mo., per month 275$ 275$
Quarter Page for 6 mo., per month 550$ 550$
Quarter Page for 12 mo., per month 400$ 400$
Half Page for 6 mo., per month 1,000$ 1,000$
Half Page for 12 mo., per month 700$ 700$
Full Page for 6 mo., per month 1,500$ 1,500$
Full Page for 12 mo., per month 1,200$ 1,200$
Premium Placement:
Back Cover for 6 mo., per month 2,500$ 2,500$
Back Cover for 12 mo., per month 2,200$ 2,200$
Inside Front Cover for 6 mo., per month 2,850$ 2,850$
Inside Front Cover for 12 mo., per month 2,700$ 2,700$
Inside Back Cover for 6 mo., per month 2,200$ 2,200$
Inside Back Cover for 12 mo., per month 1,700$ 1,700$
Non-Profit Rates for Display Ads:
Quarter Page for 1 mo., per month 550$ 550$
Quarter Page for 3 mo., per month 300$ 300$
Quarter Page for 6 mo., per month 250$ 250$
Half Page for 1 mo., per month 775$ 775$
Half Page for 3 mo., per month 550$ 550$
Half Page for 6 mo., per month 375$ 375$
Full Page for 1 mo., per month 1,100$ 1,100$
Full Page for 3 mo., per month 900$ 900$
Full Page for 6 mo., per month 700$ 700$
10
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Event Facilities 2014-15 2015-16
Vendor Fees
Kitchen Fee, per person 1.00$ 1.00$
Electrical Fee (Tradeshows), per Exhibitor 25.00$ 25.00$
Linens 50.00$ 50.00$
Early Open Fee (prior to normal scheduled hours), per staff member per hour 25.00$ 25.00$
Ice, one bin (80lbs)15.00$ 15.00$
Ice, unlimited 25.00$ 25.00$
Civic Center - Grand Ballroom (7,198 sq. ft)
Banquet Package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, dance floor, AV
panel access, ice, F&B(kitchen):
Sunday - Full day 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$
Sunday - Half day 950.00$ 950.00$
Mon-Thur - Full day 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Mon-Thur - Half day 875.00$ 875.00$
Friday through Saturday, all day (half day not available)2,100.00$ 2,100.00$
Conference package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, access AV,
kitchen, ice:
Sunday - Full day 900.00$ 900.00$
Sunday - Half day 650.00$ 650.00$
Monday through Thursday - per day 700.00$ 700.00$
Monday through Thursday - per half day 575.00$ 575.00$
Friday through Saturday, per day (half day not available)1,800.00$ 1,800.00$
Regular Rentals
Monday through Thursday, all day 500.00$ 500.00$
Monday through Thursday, half day 375.00$ 375.00$
Friday through Saturday, all day (half day not available)1,600.00$ 1,600.00$
Sunday, all day 700.00$ 700.00$
Sunday, half day 450.00$ 450.00$
Stage 200.00$ 200.00$
Dance Floor 200.00$ 200.00$
Damage/Cancellation Deposit 500.00$ 500.00$
Audio/Visual Services (contracted)175.00$ 175.00$
Additional time, per hour 50.00$ 50.00$
Audio/Visual Panel Access 75.00$ 75.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)25.00$ 25.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 50.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
11
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Event Facilities 2014-15 2015-16
Civic Center Cut-Off Hall (Larger portion of Ballroom - 4,172 sq ft)
Banquet Package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, dance floor, AV
panel access, ice, F&B(kitchen):
Sunday - Full day 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Sunday - Half day 825.00$ 825.00$
Mon-Thur - Full day 825.00$ 825.00$
Mon-Thur - Half day 750.00$ 750.00$
Friday through Saturday, all day (half day not available)1,700.00$ 1,700.00$
Conference package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, access AV,
kitchen, ice:
Sunday - Full day 700.00$ 700.00$
Sunday - Half day 525.00$ 525.00$
Monday through Thursday - per day 525.00$ 525.00$
Monday through Thursday - per half day 450.00$ 450.00$
Friday through Saturday, per day (half day not available)1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Regular Rentals
Monday through Thursday, per day 325.00$ 325.00$
Monday through Thursday, half day 250.00$ 250.00$
Friday and Saturday, per day 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$
Sunday, per day 500.00$ 500.00$
Sunday, half day 325.00$ 325.00$
Stage 200.00$ 200.00$
Dance Floor 200.00$ 200.00$
Damage/Cancellation Deposit 500.00$ 500.00$
Audiovisual Services for 4 hours (Both rooms)175.00$ 175.00$
Additional time, per hour 50.00$ 50.00$
Audio/Visual Panel Access 75.00$ 75.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)25.00$ 25.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
12
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Event Facilities 2014-15 2015-16
Civic Center Conference Hall (Smaller portion of Ballroom - 3,026 sq ft)
Conference package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, access AV,
kitchen, ice:
Sunday - Full day 600.00$ 600.00$
Sunday - Half day 450.00$ 450.00$
Monday through Thursday - per day 450.00$ 450.00$
Monday through Thursday - per half day 375.00$ 375.00$
Regular Rentals
Monday through Thursday, per day 250.00$ 250.00$
Monday through Thursday, half day 175.00$ 175.00$
Sunday, per day 400.00$ 400.00$
Sunday, half day 250.00$ 250.00$
Not Available on Friday and Saturday
Audiovisual Access 25.00$ 25.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)25.00$ 25.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
Civic Center - Bluebonnet Hall (2,500 sq ft)
Banquet Package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, AV panel access,
ice, kitchen:
Sunday - Full day 400.00$ 400.00$
Sunday - Half day 300.00$ 300.00$
Mon-Thur - Full day 325.00$ 325.00$
Mon-Thur - Half day 225.00$ 225.00$
Friday through Saturday, all day (half day not available)600.00$ 600.00$
Conference package - includes hall rental, tables/chairs, access AV,
kitchen, ice:
Sunday - Full day 400.00$ 400.00$
Sunday - Half day 300.00$ 300.00$
Monday through Thursday - per day 325.00$ 325.00$
Monday through Thursday - per half day 225.00$ 225.00$
Friday through Saturday, per day (half day not available)600.00$ 600.00$
Regular Rentals
Monday through Thursday, all day 225.00$ 225.00$
Monday through Thursday, half day 125.00$ 125.00$
Friday through Saturday, all day (half day not available)500.00$ 500.00$
Sunday, all day 300.00$ 300.00$
Sunday, half day 200.00$ 200.00$
Damage/Cancellation Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
Kitchen 75.00$ 75.00$
Audiovisual Access 25.00$ 25.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)25.00$ 25.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
13
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Event Facilities 2014-15 2015-16
Community Center North- 3501 Morning Dr (2,006 sq ft)
Monday-Thursday, all day 150.00$ 150.00$
Monday-Thursday, half day 100.00$ 100.00$
Friday-Saturday, all day (half day not available)300.00$ 300.00$
Sunday, all day 200.00$ 200.00$
Sunday, half day 125.00$ 125.00$
Damage/Cancellation Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)25.00$ 25.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
Community Center Central
Monday- Thursday, per day 150.00$ 150.00$
Monday - Thursday, half day 100.00$ 100.00$
Friday-Saturday, per day 400.00$ 400.00$
Sunday, per day 250.00$ 250.00$
Sunday, half day 150.00$ 150.00$
Stage 100.00$ 100.00$
Projector/Screen/Microphone 50.00$ 50.00$
Damage/Cancellation Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
Approved Setup Kit (required for catered events)26.00$ 26.00$
Administrative Booking Fee, to hold the faciltiy for 7 days 25.00$ Delete
and will be applied to rent if booked
Cancellation fee**$50.00
Churches, governmental entities, 501 (c) 3 and civic groups
who provide a service to the residents of Schertz will
receive a 25% discount on the above facility rental rates.
**If damage/cancellation fee is NOT forfeited, cancellation fee will be withheld
from deposit. If forfeited, no additional fee will be withheld.
14
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Parks and Recreation 2014-15 2015-16
Pavilion Rental Rates - Small Pavilion
Schertz Residents
Rental Fee (6am-2pm) or (3pm-11pm)55.00$ 55.00$
Rental Fee all day 85.00$ 85.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
Non-Schertz Residents
Rental Fee (6am-2pm) or (3pm-11pm)90.00$ 90.00$
Rental Fee all day 135.00$ 135.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
Pavilion Rental Rates - Large Pavilion
Schertz Residents
WITHOUT KITCHEN
Rental Fee 100.00$ 100.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
WITH KITCHEN/RESTROOMS
Rental Fee 200.00$ 200.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
Damage Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
Non-Schertz Residents
WITHOUT KITCHEN
Rental Fee 150.00$ 150.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
WITH KITCHEN/RESTROOMS
Rental Fee 300.00$ 300.00$
Monday-Thrusday 50% discount on rates
Damage Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
15
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Parks and Recreation 2014-15 2015-16
Pools
Daily Rates
Per swimmer per entry 2.00$ 2.00$
Daily pass 3.00$ 3.00$
Admission is free for children under the
age of 2 years.
Season Rates-Maximum per season pass is six (6) members
Schertz Residents
Individual rate 40.00$ 40.00$
2 member rate 50.00$ 50.00$
3 member rate 60.00$ 60.00$
4 member rate 70.00$ 70.00$
5 member rate 80.00$ 80.00$
6 member rate 90.00$ 90.00$
Non-Schertz Residents
Individual rate 70.00$ 70.00$
2 member rate 80.00$ 80.00$
3 member rate 90.00$ 90.00$
4 member rate 100.00$ 100.00$
5 member rate 110.00$ 110.00$
6 member rate 120.00$ 120.00$
Regular Preschool/Child Care Center
Teacher/Child Care Attendant and 5
students per pass.
In City 80.00$ 80.00$
Out of City 120.00$ 120.00$
16
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Parks and Recreation 2014-15 2015-16
Swimming lessons rate
Schertz Residents - per child ****
Non- Residents - per child ****
Pool Reservations
Schertz Residents
1 to 50 People ****
51 to 100 People ****
101 to 150 People ****
151 to 200 People ****
201 to 250 People ****
251 to 293 People ****
Non-Residents
1 to 50 People ****
51 to 100 People ****
101 to 150 People ****
151 to 200 People ****
201 to 250 People ****
251 to 293 People ****
Northcliffe Pool
Schertz Residents
1 to 50 People (2 hours maximum)****
50 to 100 People (2 hours maximum)****
Non-Residents
1 to 50 People (2 hours maximum)****
50 to 100 People (2 hours maximum)****
**THESE RATES NOW SET BY CONTRACTOR**
**THESE RATES NOW SET BY CONTRACTOR**
17
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Animal Services 2014-15 2015-16
Pet License
Standard fee,5.00$ 5.00$
license per year per spayed or neutered animal
Standard fee,10.00$ 10.00$
license per year per un-spayed or un-neutered animal
Replacement tags (if lost)2.00$ 2.00$
Permits - A permit shall be issue after payment of application fee:
Kennel authorized to house 10 or less dogs or cats 75.00$ 75.00$
Kennel authorized to house more than 10 but less than 50 150.00$ 150.00$
Kennel authorized to house 50 or more 200.00$ 200.00$
Pet Shop 100.00$ 100.00$
Grooming Shop 30.00$ 30.00$
Commercial Riding Stable 10 or less 75.00$ 75.00$
Commercial Riding Stable 11-50 150.00$ 150.00$
Commercial Riding Stable 51 or more 200.00$ 200.00$
Annual Crescent Bend Riding Permit, per horse 100.00$ 100.00$
Auction 100.00$ 100.00$
Zoological Park 200.00$ 200.00$
Animal Exhibition/Circus/Petting Zoo 100.00$ 100.00$
Guard Dog Training Center 200.00$ 200.00$
Obedience Training Center 50.00$ 50.00$
Commercial Establishment Using a Guard Dog 75.00$ 75.00$
Commercial Annual Sellers Permit 150.00$ 150.00$
Dangerous Dog Permit 200.00$ 200.00$
Temporary Permit* - not to exceed 7 days 15.00$ 15.00$
*Good for Crescent Bend Riding (per horse), Animal Exhibition/Circus/Petting Zoo, and
Auction Permits
Temporary Animal Sales Permit (Pet Expos), not to exceed 3 days 30.00$ 30.00$
Impoundment Fee: An impoundment fee must be paid for each captured animal
Dog/Cat Impoundment
Within a 1 year period
1st Offense
Neutered 30.00$ 30.00$
Un-neutered 45.00$ 45.00$
2nd Offense
Neutered 50.00$ 50.00$
Un-neutered 70.00$ 70.00$
3rd Offense
Neutered 100.00$ 100.00$
Un-neutered 120.00$ 120.00$
4th Offense
Neutered 150.00$ 150.00$
Un-neutered 170.00$ 170.00$
Each Additional Offense
Base- Neutered 150.00$
Base- Un-neutered 170.00$
Per Additional Offense 50.00$
Fowl or other small animal 30.00$ 30.00$
Livestock 75.00$ 75.00$
Zoological/Circus animal 200.00$ 200.00$
18
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Animal Services 2014-15 2015-16
Boarding Fee: A boarding fee must be paid for each animal
Dog/Cat, per day 12.00$ 15.00$
Fowl or other small animal, per day 10.00$ 10.00$
Reptile, per day 30.00$ 30.00$
Livestock, per day 50.00$ 50.00$
Zoological/Circus animal, per day 200.00$ 200.00$
Surrender Fee: Charge per animal with proof of Schertz residency
Fowl/Reptile/Small Animal 10.00$ 10.00$
Dog/Cat neutered/spayed /current rabies cert./heartworm negative 35.00$ 35.00$
Dog/Cat all other surrenders 65.00$ 65.00$
Small Livestock 50.00$ 50.00$
Large Livestock 100.00$ 100.00$
Zoological or Circus 200.00$ 200.00$
Litter Fee (3 or more animals under 2 months old)75.00$ 75.00$
Quarantine Fee:
Dog/Cat 50.00$ 50.00$
Plus Daily Charge per animal for boarding 15.00$ 15.00$
Micro Chipping 15.00$ 15.00$
Trap Rental Fee:
Trap Deposit, refundable when trap is returned 75.00$ 75.00$
Trap Rental Fee, per day 5.00$
19
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Marshal Service 2014-15 2015-16
Health Division
Food Establishment Fees:
Non-Profit Organizations (regardless of number of employees)100.00$ 100.00$
1-3 Employees 150.00$ 150.00$
4-6 Employees 285.00$ 285.00$
7-10 Employees 540.00$ 540.00$
11-20 Employees 575.00$ 575.00$
21+ Employees 725.00$ 725.00$
Temporary Food and/or Beverage Establishment 50.00$ 50.00$
Food Handlers Class, for each employee attending the class 30.00$ 30.00$
Food Handler Permit, online class 20.00$ 20.00$
Mobile Vendors 150.00$ 150.00$
Public and HOA Swimming Pool License 110.00$ 110.00$
Foster Care 50.00$ 50.00$
Re-inspection fees 75.00$ 75.00$
* City Code Violation Court Fee 10.00$ 10.00$
Nuisance Abatement Administrative Fee 100.00$
Sanitation Inspection Fees - Outside of City
Hourly Charge, one hour minimum 50.00$ 50.00$
Mileage over 15 miles, per mile 5.00$ 5.00$
Administrative Fee 15%15%
*Any citation issued by individuals defined in Section 22-40 (Authority to issue notice of
violations), shall be able to collect a dismisal fee from an individual who abates such
violation upon their court appearance. Judge Stephen Takas suggested that we charge a
dismisal fee to remedy some of the expenses incurred from the issuance of such citation.
20
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Police Department 2014-15 2015-16
Alarm Permit Fees
Residential - Annually 10.00$ 10.00$
Tier 1 Commercial 25.00$ 25.00$
Tier 2 Commercial site alarm system required 50.00$ 50.00$
under local, state or national code
Alarm Service Fees: Other than Burglar Alarms
4TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 100.00$ 100.00$
5TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 150.00$ 150.00$
6TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 200.00$ 200.00$
7TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 250.00$ 250.00$
8TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 500.00$ 500.00$
Others After 8TH within 12 Mo. Period 500.00$ 500.00$
Burglar Alarm Service Fees:
4TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 50.00$ 50.00$
5TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 50.00$ 50.00$
6TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 75.00$ 75.00$
7TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 75.00$ 75.00$
8TH False Alarm within 12 Mo. Period 100.00$ 100.00$
Others After 8TH within 12 Mo. Period 100.00$ 100.00$
Miscellaneous Fees
Accident Reports, each 6.00$ 6.00$
Fingerprints, per set 10.00$ 10.00$
Solicitor/Peddler Permit 50.00$ 50.00$
Background Check Fee 10.00$ 10.00$
21
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Fire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2014-15 2015-16
Permit Fee Schedule
Certificate of Occupancy - Inspections 50.00$ 50.00$
License Inspections 50.00$ 50.00$
Base Fire Suppression System Installation 100.00$ 100.00$
Additional installation charge, per sprinkler head 1.00$ 1.00$
Base Fire Alarms Installation 100.00$ 100.00$
Additional installation charge, per initiating or notification device 1.00$ 1.00$
Re-Inspection 45.00$ 45.00$
Smoke Control System Plan (for each review)75.00$ 75.00$
Flammable or combustible liquid tanks, each review 150.00$ 150.00$
After hours fee, per hour per inspector 60.00$ 60.00$
(beyond the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
Plan Review Fees, construction per hour 50.00$ 50.00$
Fireworks display permit 250.00$ 250.00$
Operational Permits
Open or Control Burn - Commercial 150.00$ 150.00$
Open or Control Burn - Non-commercial 25.00$ 25.00$
Tents 50.00$ 50.00$
Cutting and Welding 50.00$ 50.00$
Explosives 50.00$ 50.00$
Flammable Storage 50.00$ 50.00$
Carnivals and Fairs 50.00$ 50.00$
Battery Systems 50.00$ 50.00$
Combustible Dust Product Options 50.00$ 50.00$
Cryogenic Fluids 50.00$ 50.00$
Haz-mat 50.00$ 50.00$
Lumberyards 50.00$ 50.00$
Spraying and Dipping 50.00$ 50.00$
Storage of Tires 50.00$ 50.00$
Operation Charges
Hazardous materials operations service fees.
(a) Communications. The following fees for dispatching shall be charged for fire
department response:
1. Dispatch fee, $ 75.00 $ 75.00
Administration Fee 15%15%
(b) Apparatus. The following fees shall be charged for emergency response
operations.
1. Class A pumper, per hour 250.00$ 250.00$
2. Aerial apparatus, per hour 300.00$ 300.00$
3. Tanker apparatus, per hour 175.00$ 175.00$
4. Rescue truck, per hour 150.00$ 150.00$
5. Command unit, per hour 75.00$ 75.00$
6. Rescue boat, per hour 150.00$ 150.00$
7. Rehab unit, per hour 75.00$ 75.00$
8. Staff vehicle, per hour 75.00$ 75.00$
9. Brush truck, per hour 150.00$ 150.00$
NOTE: Non-emergency, standby and returning to services fees will be charged at
one-half the hourly rate:
(c) Personnel. The following fees for personnel shall be charged for operations
response:
1. Firefighter, per hour 20.00$ 20.00$
22
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Fire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2014-15 2015-16
2. Haz-mat tech, per hour 25.00$ 25.00$
3. Haz-mat operation, per hour 25.00$ 25.00$
4. Fire inspectors, per hour 30.00$ 30.00$
5. Fire investigators, per hour 30.00$ 30.00$
6. Incident commander, per hour 40.00$ 40.00$
(d) Haz-mat. The following fees for Haz-mat supplies shall be charged for
operations response:
1. Absorbent, per bag 15.00$ 15.00$
2. Drum liners, each 10.00$ 10.00$
3. Lite-dri, per 50 lb. bag 20.00$ 20.00$
4. Top-sol, per bag 30.00$ 30.00$
5. Barricade tape, per roll 20.00$ 20.00$
6. Poly sheeting, per roll 50.00$ 50.00$
7. Plug and patch kit, Plug 'n Dike 205.00$ 205.00$
8. Plug and Dike Kit Complete 50.00$ 50.00$
9. Disposable coveralls, each 45.00$ 45.00$
10. Latex gloves, pair 5.00$ 5.00$
11. Disposable goggles, pair 10.00$ 10.00$
12. Broom, each 40.00$ 40.00$
13. Shovel, each 50.00$ 50.00$
(e) Protective equipment replacement. The following fees for damaged or
contaminated protective equipment shall be charged for operations response:
1. Helmet, each 250.00$ 250.00$
2. Nomex hood, each 35.00$ 35.00$
3. Bunker coat, each 989.00$ 989.00$
4. Bunker pants, each 983.00$ 983.00$
5. FF boots, pair 120.00$ 120.00$
6. FF gloves, pair 49.00$ 49.00$
(f) Firefighting agents. The following fees for specialized fire protection supplies
shall be charged for operations response:
1. AFFF foam, per gallon 75.00$ 75.00$
2. Class A foam, per gallon 65.00$ 65.00$
3. Light water, per gallon 20.00$ 20.00$
4. Micro-clean, per gallon 30.00$ 30.00$
5. Star-dust, per 15 lb. bag 25.00$ 25.00$
23
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Fire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2014-15 2015-16
(g) Firefighting equipment replacement. The following fee for damaged or
contaminated equipment shall be charged for operations response:
1. Hose 1.0" (each 50')255.00$ 255.00$
2. Hose 1.75" (each 50')350.00$ 350.00$
3. Hose 2.5" (each 50')172.00$ 172.00$
4. Hose 3.0" (each 50')225.00$ 225.00$
5. Hose 5.0" (each 100')950.00$ 950.00$
6. Hose 1.0" booster (each 50')270.00$ 270.00$
7. SCBA air mask (each)375.00$ 375.00$
8. SCBA air mask complete (each)6,555.00$ 6,555.00$
9. SCBA spare cylinders (each)1,255.00$ 1,255.00$
10. 12' roof ladder (each)330.00$ 330.00$
11. 14' roof ladder (each)375.00$ 375.00$
12. 24' extension ladder (each)525.00$ 525.00$
13. 35' extension ladder (each)925.00$ 925.00$
14. A-frame combo ladder (each)480.00$ 480.00$
15. PASS alarm (each)200.00$ 200.00$
16. Portable radio, each 3,400.00$ 3,400.00$
17. Fog nozzle 1.5-1.75", each 645.00$ 645.00$
18. Fog nozzle 1.0", each 540.00$ 540.00$
19. Fog nozzle 2.5", each 705.00$ 705.00$
20. Fog nozzle 2.5" master, each 847.00$ 847.00$
21. Stacked tips w/shaper, each 566.00$ 566.00$
22. Deluge monitor w/o pie and tips, each 2,575.00$ 2,575.00$
23. Foam aerator tube, each 396.00$ 396.00$
24. 8' attic folding ladder, each 230.00$ 230.00$
25. 10" attic folding ladder, each 255.00$ 255.00$
Note: This list is not all-inclusive of equipment that may be damaged or
contaminated during the course of a response effort. Additional equipment that
is not herein listed may be charged at actual replacement costs.
(h) Rescue equipment used. The following fees for rescue equipment used shall
be charged for operations response:
1. Spreaders, per hour 125.00$ 125.00$
2. Cutters, per hour 125.00$ 125.00$
3. Ram(s), per hour 125.00$ 125.00$
4. Porta power, per hour 55.00$ 55.00$
5. Ajax cutting tool, per hour 35.00$ 35.00$
6. Saws-all, per hour 65.00$ 65.00$
7. Air impact tools, per hour 85.00$ 85.00$
8. Oxygen with mask, per hour 90.00$ 90.00$
9. Air bags, per hour 175.00$ 175.00$
(i) Fire equipment used.
24
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Fire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2014-15 2015-16
The following fees for fire equipment used shall be charged for operations
response:
1. Camera w/pictures, each set 35.00$ 35.00$
2. Cellular phone w/long dist. Chg.25.00$ 25.00$
3. Command light 250.00$ 250.00$
4. Tripod light, each 25.00$ 25.00$
5. Hand lights, each 15.00$ 15.00$
6. Water extinguisher, each 15.00$ 15.00$
7. ABC extinguisher, each 40.00$ 40.00$
8. CO2 extinguisher, each 40.00$ 40.00$
9. Chain Saw, per hour 40.00$ 40.00$
10. Rescue (K-12) saw, per hour 40.00$ 40.00$
11. Generator, per hour 45.00$ 45.00$
12. PPV fans, per hour 50.00$ 50.00$
13. Halligan tool 20.00$ 20.00$
14. Bolt cutters (HD)20.00$ 20.00$
15. Salvage covers, each 25.00$ 25.00$
16. Hall runner, each 15.00$ 15.00$
17. Rolls of plastic, each 30.00$ 30.00$
18. Gas plug/gasoline plug kit 45.00$ 45.00$
19. Explosive meter 180.00$ 180.00$
20. SCBA, each 75.00$ 75.00$
21. Refill SCBA bottle, each 8.00$ 8.00$
22. Barricade/scene tape 20.00$ 20.00$
23. Tank, portable/fold-a-tank 150.00$ 150.00$
24. Flappers/fire brooms, each 10.00$ 10.00$
25. K-Tool 20.00$ 20.00$
26. Stokes basket w/bridle 85.00$ 85.00$
27. Windshield tool 10.00$ 10.00$
28. Kendrix extrication device 95.00$ 95.00$
29. All other non-listed items Cost Cost
plus administration fee 15%15%
25
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
EMS 2014-15 2015-16
Response Services
Aid Call 200.00$ 200.00$
Air Medical Assist Call 700.00$ 700.00$
BLS Non- Emergency 1,090.00$ 1,090.00$
BLS Emergency 1,210.00$ 1,210.00$
ALS Non Emergency 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$
ALS Emergency No Specialty Care 1,440.00$ 1,440.00$
ALS Emergency W \ Specialty Care 1,600.00$ 1,600.00$
Mileage, per mile 20.00$ 20.00$
Other Services
Ambulance Standby, per hour 125.00$ 125.00$
Gator Standby, per hour 95.00$ 95.00$
AED Supplies Actual Actual
CPR Class and Supplies Actual Actual
System Continuing Education Actual Actual
Vaccinations Actual Actual
EMT Class 950.00$ 1,000.00$
Passport to Care - Single (insured)50.00$ 50.00$
Passport to Care - Family (insured)60.00$ 60.00$
Passport to Care - Single (Not insured)65.00$ 65.00$
Passport to Care - Family (Not insured)75.00$ 75.00$
Per Capita 13.35$ 13.75$
26
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Planning and Zoning 2014-15 2015-16
Plat recording service:
Fees assessed are due prior to recording:
Plat recording fee is equal to the fee charged by the County Clerks Office
Annexation Petition by Property Owner - Plus all related fees 750.00$ 750.00$
Zone Change
Zone change for 0 to 2 acres 650.00$ 650.00$
Zone change for 2+ to 5 acres 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Zone change for 5+ to 20 acres 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Zone change for 20+ to 50 acres 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
Zone change for 50+ to 100 acres 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
Zone change for 100+ acres 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) - plus other applicable items (i.e. Site Plan)
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 0 to 2 acres 650.00$ 650.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 2+ to 5 acres 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 5+ to 20 acres 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 20+ to 50 acres 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 50+ to 100 acres 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
Specific Use Permit (SUP) for 100+ acres 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Building addition of a current/legal SUP 500.00$ 500.00$
Master Development Plan
All phased developments and PDD's 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Master Development Plan Amendment (minor revision)500.00$ 500.00$
Preliminary Plat
0 to 50 acres 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
greater than 50 acres 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Final Record Plat or Re-plat
0 to 50 acres 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
greater than 50 acres 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Revised Final Plat (minor)500.00$ 500.00$
Amended Plat 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Minor Plat 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Vacate Plat 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Plat Time Extension - plus all related fees 250.00$ 250.00$
Street and Subdivision Name Changes 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
27
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Planning and Zoning 2014-15 2015-16
Site Plan 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
Amended Site Plan (minor)500.00$ 500.00$
Time Extension 250.00$ 250.00$
Park Fees - Residential
Land Dedication: one (1) acre per 100 dwelling unit
Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication: per dwelling unit 350.00$ 350.00$
Park Development Fee: Per Dwelling unit 650.00$ 650.00$
Park Fees - Multi-Family
Land Dedication: one (1) acre per 100 dwelling unit
Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication; per dwelling unit:350.00$ 350.00$
Park Development Fee: Per Dwelling unit 650.00$ 650.00$
Miscellaneous
Tree Mitigation, inch of DBH - Plus all related fees 100.00$ 100.00$
Second and subsequent development reviews per quarter hour 300.00$ 300.00$
Zoning Verification Letter - Single tract of land per Tract 150.00$ 150.00$
Certificate of Determination - Single Tract of Land per Tract 150.00$ 150.00$
Postponement of any Public Hearing by the Applicant 350.00$ 350.00$
Appeals and requests for amendments
Considered by City Council,the Planning &Zoning Commission,or the Board of
Adjustment as allowed by the Unified Development Code:750.00$ 750.00$
Variance and/or Waivers
Unified Development Code, ea.500.00$ 500.00$
Building Code, ea.500.00$ 500.00$
Driveway width waiver requests will not be assessed with the waiver fee
Copies, Plans, and Maps:
Unified Development Code 50.00$ 50.00$
Public Works Specification Manual 50.00$ 50.00$
Staff Review - Application completeness review, internal SDR (staff)
review & meeting with applicant to review application package.
Fee included in all applications.
28
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Inspections 2014-15 2015-16
Building Permit Fees
New Construction Per Square Foot - Residential 75.00$ 75.00$
New Construction - Commercial Cost Cost
Review of Projects and Construction Plans with a cost of $5,000 or greater,as %of
Permit Fee 50%50%
All plan review fees that follow are subject to a 15% administrative fee
Drainage Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum)100.00$ 100.00$
Preliminary Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum)100.00$ 100.00$
Irrigation Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum)100.00$ 100.00$
Additional Plan Review (ie Revised), per hour (1 hour minimum)100.00$ 100.00$
Commercial/Civil Express Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum)*TBD TBD
Commercial/Civil Outsource Plan Review*Actual Actual
*Deposit Required
Construction beginning without permit, pay additional:200.00$ 200.00$
Failure to Request Inspection, per trade 100.00$ 100.00$
Failure to Obtain Contractors License/Provide Insurance 100.00$ 100.00$
Permit Fees:
Cost of Construction (Cost)
$0.00 to $1,000.00 50.00$ 50.00$
$1,001.00 to $15,000.00, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof 8.00$ 8.00$
$15,001.00 to $50,000.00, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof 7.00$ 7.00$
$50,001 and up, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof 6.00$ 6.00$
Following Use The Cost of Construction (Cost) Table:
Flatwork/Deck Cost Cost
Accessory Buildings Cost Cost
Patio/Patio Cover Cost Cost
Roof Replacement Cost Cost
Window Replacement Cost Cost
Swimming Pools in Ground Cost Cost
Swimming Pools above Ground Cost Cost
Sign Cost Cost
Foundation Repair Cost Cost
Fence 50.00$ 50.00$
Replacement Fence N/C
Siding/Fascia 75.00$ N/C
Gutters $50.00 $50.00
Temporary Building or Structure 50.00$ 50.00$
Moving Permit Fee 100.00$ 100.00$
Demolition Permit Fee 60.00$ 60.00$
Mobile Home Permit Fee (plus sub-trades as necessary)25.00$ 25.00$
Certificate of Occupancy 50.00$ 50.00$
Pre Certificate of Occupancy Inspection 200.00$ 200.00$
Failure to Obtain Certificate of Occupancy 200.00$ 200.00$
29
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Inspections 2014-15 2015-16
Compliance Inspection, each trade 50.00$ 50.00$
Temporary Sign 30.00$ 30.00$
Development Sign 100.00$ 100.00$
Banner 25.00$ 25.00$
Street Span Banner 25.00$ 25.00$
Garage Sale Permit; Includes 2 signs, limit 4 events per year 22.00$ 22.00$
HOA Garage Sale Permit 50.00$ 50.00$
Two additional garage sale signs; each 5.00$ 5.00$
Home Occupation Permit (annually)35.00$ 35.00$
Electrical Permit Fees
Electrical Repair/Replacement 60.00$
New Construction per building/unit 100.00$
Mechanical Permit Fees
Mechanical Repair/Replacement 60.00$
New Construction per building/unit 100.00$
Plumbing Permit Fees
Plumbing Repair/Replacement 60.00$
New Construction per building/unit 100.00$
Lead Solder Test 15.00$
Irrigation Permit Fees
Permit Fee 60.00$
plus per sprinkler head 1.00$
plus per backflow or RPZ 3.00$
subsequent to the installation of the piping or equipment served, each
Re-Inspection Fees
Each re-inspection, per trade 75.00$
Re-inspections after first, per trade 100.00$
NOTE: if re-inspection has been called for and the second inspection revealed
the original turn down items have not been corrected in part or whole, in
addition to the above fees, a seventy-two (72) hour notice of inspection shall be
required before another re-inspection will be conducted
No inspection fees will be charged for sites located on Main St.
30
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Inspections 2014-15 2015-16
Licenses/Registrations:150.00$ 150.00$
General Contractor (Initial)100.00$ 100.00$
General Contractor (Renewal)150.00$ N/C
Master Electrician (Initial) State of Texas Issued 75.00$ N/C
Master Electrician (Renewal) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ N/C
Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 25.00$ N/C
Apprentice/Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Mechanical Contractor (Annually) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C
Plumbing Contractor (Annually)* State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Irrigation (Annually) State of Texas Issued 60.00$ N/C
Backflow Tester - State of Texas Issued 50.00$ 50.00$
Sign Contractor (Initial)40.00$ 40.00$
Sign Contractor (Renewal)150.00$ N/C
Electrical Sign Contractor (Initial) State of Texas Issued 75.00$ N/C
Electrical Sign Contractor (Renewal) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ N/C
Electric Sign Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 25.00$ N/C
Electric Sign Apprentice/Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued 50.00$ 50.00$
Utility Contractor (Annually)40.00$ 40.00$
Fire Suppression System Contractor (Annually)
*N/C - No Charge for license per state law
Miscellaneous Fees
Additional Permit Copies 5.00$ 5.00$
Street Name Change on Permit 30.00$ 30.00$
Duplicate of Licenses/Registrations 5.00$ 5.00$
Address Corrections 30.00$ 30.00$
Notary Public 6.00$ 6.00$
Administrative Fee for Cancellation of Permit 10% of
permit fee
10% of
permit fee
For any item not specifically included in the preceding schedule, the
Development Services Department shall establish a fee consistent with
the level of work and necessary inspections established by the schedule
and the applicant shall be advised accordingly.
REMOVE ITEM
31
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
G.I.S.2014-15 2015-16
Available Maps: Municipal & Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary Map,
Current Zoning Map and Major/Minor Thoroughfare Map
Standard size 11" x 17"5.00$ 5.00$
Standard size 30" x 40"30.00$ 30.00$
Optional size 8.5" x 11"5.00$ 5.00$
Optional size 17" x 22"20.00$ 20.00$
Optional size 22" x 34"35.00$ 35.00$
Optional size 34" x 44"75.00$ 75.00$
Standard size maps are available for download in Portable Document Format
(PDF) on the City Website free of charge. www.schertz.com/maps_gis.html
32
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Engineering 2014-15 2015-16
Grading and Clearing Permit - Acreage
For non-agricultural purposes
Below 5 acres 100.00$ 100.00$
5 to 20 acres 250.00$ 250.00$
Per acre over 20, plus base charge for 20 acres 3.00$ 3.00$
Over 100 acres 490.00$ 490.00$
Reinspection Fee 50.00$ 50.00$
Grading and Clearing Permit Fees are waived for applicants representing Home Owner's
Associations proposing maintenance activities in drainage easements.
33
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Drainage Fees 2014-15 2015-16
Charge Per Residence 5.20$ 5.20$
Commercial, per LUE 5.20$ 5.20$
Floodplain Permit 20.00$ 20.00$
34
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Water Deposit
In City 125.00$ 125.00$
Out of City 150.00$ 150.00$
Commercial 100.00$ 100.00$
or 2 1/2 times estimated monthly billing 2.5 times 2.5 times
Disconnect Fee 20.00$ 20.00$
Extension Fee 5.00$ 5.00$
2 free extensions
Transfer Fee 10.00$ 10.00$
Garbage Deposit
Residential 25.00$ 25.00$
Commercial 100.00$ 100.00$
or 2 1/2 times estimated monthly billing 2.5 times 2.5 times
Meter Flow Test
After Hours Disconnect/Reconnect 50.00$ 50.00$
City Field Test 10.00$ 10.00$
City Meter Bench Flow Test 25.00$ 25.00$
Schertz Seguin Water Customers 4.00$ 4.00$
Non-Schertz Seguin Customer 15.00$ 15.00$
Extended Absence Charge 10.00$ 10.00$
Re-Installation Fee, per hour 50.00$ 50.00$
Fire Hydrant Fee
Deposit 200.00$ 200.00$
Service Fee 50.00$ 50.00$
Base Rate 90.00$ 90.00$
Business Office
35
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Chipping charges, per half hour 25.00$ 25.00$
2014-15 2015-16
Residential:
Class I: Residential, Single Family, per month 11.70$ 12.05$
2 Cart pick up 17.53$ 18.05$
3 Cart Pick up 23.38$ 24.08$
4 Cart Pick up 29.22$ 30.09$
Recycling Fee, per month/container 1.93$ 1.99$
Special Pickup:
Move Ins, Special Tree Trimmings, oversize 16.30$ 16.79$
materials, & similar circumstances; minimum
Class 1A:
Residential , Front Curb, per month 17.08$ 17.59$
Class 1B:11.70$ 12.05$
Once a week residential pick-up in selected
areas. (Contractor will provide a 96 gallon
cart at no charge); per month
Class II: Mobile Home Parks 9.33$ 9.61$
Mobile Home Parks (2 or more mobile homes)
(based on number in park on the 15th day of the month),
per unit/monthly
Class III: Apartments 9.33$ 9.61$
per unit/monthly
Class IV: Motels 4.12$ 4.24$
per unit/monthly
2 Commercial
Class V: 14.81$ 15.25$
Offices, barber shops and
Professional services, per month
Class VI:25.54$ 26.30$
Light retail, wholesale, commercial
or industrial, 2000 to 4000 square feet
and excluding large grocery stores, etc., per month
Class VII: 37.09$ 38.20$
Medium retail, wholesale
commercial or industrial (2000 to 4000
square feet and exclude large grocery store, etc.), per month
2 Cart, 1 pickup per week 38.29$ 39.43$
Public Works - Streets
Garbage Collection Fees
36
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Garbage Collection Fees
Class VIII:
Heavy Volume retail wholesale, commercial, or industrial
(placement determined by a time and cost study of
refuse generation and collection. The categories in
this class usually require hand loading from rooms or
pens and would not apply when commercial containers
are used.)
A. Two weekly pickups of 1.5 cubic yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department
stores, per month 65.91$ 67.87$
B. Two weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 131.80$ 135.73$
C. Three weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers,
excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 205.95$ 212.09$
D. Four weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 247.11$ 254.47$
E. Five weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 329.49$ 339.31$
F. Six weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers,
including large grocery, furniture or department stores,
etc., per month 411.92$ 424.20$
G. Customer requiring more than four (4) cu.
Yds each pickup would be charged per cu.
Yds. Collected., per yard 4.56$ 4.70$
37
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Garbage Collection Fees
3. Commercial Containers.
CONTRACTOR will provide commercial containers
to those customers who desire to use them in lieu
of garbage cans. The use of such CONTRACTOR
provided containers is required by this contract.
Rates for containers and pickup will be based
on the following table:
Container Size:Frequency of Pickup
2015-16/2016-17 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 cu. Yard 57.73$ 98.30$ 118.74$ 135.74$ 152.71$ 169.66$
3 cu. Yard 69.58$ 125.52$ 173.07$ 198.47$ 223.96$ 249.39$
4 cu. Yard 86.48$ 149.34$ 203.58$ 245.99$ 288.44$ 330.85$
6 cu. Yard 122.20$ 203.58$ 279.96$ 356.33$ 432.60$ 508.97$
8 cu. Yard 144.23$ 262.97$ 364.73$ 466.56$ 569.08$ 670.17$
10 cu. Yard 166.24$ 305.35$ 432.60$ 542.94$ 653.18$ 763.44$
2013-14/2014-15 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 cu. Yard 56.06$ 95.46$ 115.30$ 131.81$ 148.29$ 164.75$
3 cu. Yard 67.57$ 121.89$ 168.06$ 192.73$ 217.48$ 242.17$
4 cu. Yard 83.98$ 145.02$ 197.69$ 238.87$ 280.09$ 321.28$
6 cu. Yard 118.66$ 197.69$ 271.86$ 346.02$ 420.08$ 494.24$
8 cu. Yard 140.06$ 255.36$ 354.18$ 453.06$ 552.61$ 650.78$
10 cu. Yard 161.43$ 296.51$ 420.08$ 527.23$ 634.28$ 741.35$
38
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Garbage Collection Fees
4. Roll-Off Rates Per Pull Open Top Containers - Dry Material
20 cu. Yard 304.77$ 313.85$
30 cu. Yard 362.42$ 373.22$
40 cu. Yard 420.08$ 432.60$
Roll-off Rental (no pulls within billing cycle)126.02$ 129.78$
per container per month
5. Wet Material Rates on Compactor containers
or open top containers with wet material must be
negotiated with customers at the time they are
needed. This type of waste must be hauled to a
Type I landfill which generally has a higher
disposal rate attached to it.
Roll-off Container Delivery Charge per container 36.73$ 37.82$
Roll-off Relocation or Trip Charge per container 36.73$ 37.82$
2 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week)217.14$ 223.61$
Extra pick ups (2 yard compactor), each 82.33$ 84.78$
4 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week)447.33$ 460.66$
30 cu yard Compactor, per pull 551.91$ 568.36$
40 cu yard Compactor, per pull 655.71$ 675.25$
30 cu yard Open-top (Recycle), per pull 205.82$ 211.95$
Front-Load container extra pick-up charges
2 cu yard 28.01$ 28.84$
3 cu yard 35.01$ 36.05$
4 cu yard 42.02$ 43.27$
6 cu yard 49.02$ 50.48$
8 cu yard 56.02$ 57.69$
10 cu yard 63.01$ 64.89$
OVER WEIGHT CHARGE 28.09$ 28.93$
Collection and Disposal of Municipal Wastes
To address non standard requests, the solid waste contractor can negotiate a fee with
the customer requesting the service. The City will collect 15% of the negotiated fee per
the franchise agreement.
39
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Sewer Rates 2014-15 2015-16
Residential Rates (Single Family)
Base Rate-per month 6.83$ 6.83$
Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month
City line Maintenance fee plus Franchise fee 0.27$ 0.27$
User Charge based on 100% of avg consumption mo.3.00$ 3.15$
User avg. based on Nov, Dec, and Jan, min. 500 gals.
Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less 3.27$ 3.42$
greater than 12,000 gallons 5.15$ 5.15$
Business and Multi-family Dwelling Units:
Base Rate per month 8.66$ 8.66$
The base rate shall be assessed in terms of connection equivalents
which shall be as follows: the customer's previous 12 month water
consumption as determined at the annual re-rating in February
divided by 365, with the results of such division then
divided by 245 gallons. The figure arrived at by the second
division shall be the customer's "connection equivalent". Each
business shall be assessed a base rate.
Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month
Line Maintenance-Commercial/Industrial users plus Franchise fee 0.33$ 0.33$
User Charge-based on 100% of water consumed 3.00$ 3.15$
Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less 3.33$ 3.48$
greater than 12,000 gallons 5.20$ 5.20$
Public Schools
Base Rate per month
Base Rate-each public school shall be assessed a 8.66$ 8.66$
base rate per connection equivalent determined as
in Business and Multi-family dwelling units above. (per month)
Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month
Line Maintenance-Commercial/Industrial users 0.33$ 0.33$
User Charge-based on 100% of all water consumed 3.00$ 3.15$
Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less 3.33$ 3.48$
greater than 12,000 gallons 5.20$ 5.20$
For Information Purposes Only:
Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (CCMA), Per 1,000 gallons 3.00$ 3.15$
includes 5% franchise fee
40
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Meter Size Meter Type
5/8"SIMPLE 1.0 2,934$ 2,934$
3/4"SIMPLE 1.5 4,401$ 4,401$
1"SIMPLE 2.5 7,335$ 7,335$
1.5"SIMPLE 5.0 14,670$ 14,670$
2"SIMPLE 8.0 23,472$ 23,472$
2"COMPOUND 8.0 23,472$ 23,472$
2"TURBINE 10.0 29,340$ 29,340$
3"COMPOUND 16.0 46,944$ 46,944$
3"TURBINE 24.0 70,416$ 70,416$
4"COMPOUND 25.0 73,350$ 73,350$
4"TURBINE 42.0 123,228$ 123,228$
6"COMPOUND 50.0 146,700$ 146,700$
6"TURBINE 92.0 269,928$ 269,928$
8"COMPOUND 80.0 234,720$ 234,720$
9"TURBINE 160.0 469,440$ 469,440$
10"COMPOUND 115.0 337,410$ 337,410$
10"TURBINE 250.0 733,500$ 733,500$
12"TURBINE 330.0 968,220$ 968,220$
*Collection Impact Fee Per Living Unit Equivalent (LUE)1,668$ 1,668$
*Sewer based on LUE: LUE = 245 gallons per day
These are only City of Schertz impact fees.
Other Utility Impact Fees
*Treatment Impact Fee Per LUE:1,800.00$
Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC)
Example by meter size:5/8"1,306.00$
LUEs
Water
Water Impact Fees
SEWER - BASE RATE
41
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16
Permit Fees - If tie into manhole or 25.00$ 25.00$
street cut
Fire Line Type Nos. 1 and 2 - (non-metered), in City
4-inch service line connection or smaller 175.00$ 175.00$
6 inch 235.00$ 235.00$
8 inch 290.00$ 290.00$
10 inch 340.00$ 340.00$
12 inch 405.00$ 405.00$
Fire Line - Outside City
4-inch service line connection or smaller 225.00$ 225.00$
6 inch 305.00$ 305.00$
8 inch 375.00$ 375.00$
10 inch 440.00$ 440.00$
12 inch 525.00$ 525.00$
Meter Size
5/8" X 3/4"265.00$ 265.00$
3/4" X 3/4"295.00$ 295.00$
1" X 1"367.00$ 367.00$
1.5" X 1/5"611.00$ 611.00$
2" X 2"769.00$ 769.00$
*2" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*3" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*3" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*4" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*4" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*2" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
Public Works
Meter Installation Fees - Inside the City
42
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
2014-15 2015-16Public Works
Meter Installation Fees - Outside the City
Meter Size
5/8" X 3/4"275.00$ 275.00$
3/4" X 3/4"305.00$ 305.00$
1" X 1"377.00$ 377.00$
1.5" X 1/5"621.00$ 621.00$
2" X 2"779.00$ 779.00$
*2" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*3" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*3" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*4" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*4" turbine Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
*2" Comp Cost + Labor Cost + Labor
Fire Hydrant Meter for Construction
Deposit (refundable)200.00$ 200.00$
Service Charge 50.00$ 50.00$
Development Permit
% of total valuation of public infrastructure improvements 1%1%
Reinspection Fee 50.00$ 50.00$
Wholesale Water Distribution Rate
Base Rate, per month
3 Inch Compound Meter 315.28$ 315.28$
3 Inch Turbine Meter 472.92$ 472.92$
4 Inch Compound Meter 492.63$ 492.63$
4 Inch Turbine Meter 827.62$ 827.62$
6 Inch Compound Meter 985.26$ 985.26$
6 Inch Turbine Meter 1,812.88$ 1,812.88$
8 Inch Compound Meter 1,576.80$ 1,576.80$
8 Inch Turbine Meter 3,153.60$ 3,153.60$
10 Inch Compound Meter 2,266.65$ 2,266.65$
10 Inch Turbine Meter 4,927.50$ 4,927.50$
12 Inch Turbine Meter 6,504.30$ 6,504.30$
Wholesale Water Distribution Rate, per 1,000 gallons 2.27$ 2.27$
Available by agreement to distributors with a self-maintained
water distribution service, Military Bases, and for temporary
use until reuse water is made available in a particular area.
43
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Public Works - Water Rates
GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL)
METER BLOCK
GALLONS BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE RATE 1000
5/8 IN 0 19.71$ 2.43$ 23.87$ 4.87$
CODE 1 6,000 34.29$ 2.47$ 53.09$ 4.93$
9,000 41.70$ 2.68$ 67.88$ 5.37$
12,000 49.74$ 2.89$ 83.99$ 5.78$
15,000 58.41$ 3.06$ 101.33$ 6.12$
18,000 67.59$ 3.85$ 119.69$ 7.70$
30,000 113.79$ 4.38$ 212.09$ 8.76$
45,000 179.49$ 4.66$ 343.49$ 9.32$
60,000 249.39$ 4.83$ 483.29$ 9.65$
75,000+321.84$ 4.93$ 628.04$ 9.86$
3/4 IN 0 29.56$ 2.43$ 35.80$ 4.87$
CODE 2 6,000 44.14$ 2.47$ 65.02$ 4.93$
9,000 51.55$ 2.68$ 79.81$ 5.37$
12,000 59.59$ 2.89$ 95.92$ 5.78$
15,000 68.26$ 3.06$ 113.26$ 6.12$
18,000 77.44$ 3.85$ 131.62$ 7.70$
30,000 123.64$ 4.38$ 224.02$ 8.76$
45,000 189.34$ 4.66$ 355.42$ 9.32$
60,000 259.24$ 4.83$ 495.22$ 9.65$
75,000+331.69$ 4.93$ 639.97$ 9.86$
1.0 IN 0 49.26$ 2.43$ 59.67$ 4.87$
CODE 3 6,000 63.84$ 2.47$ 88.89$ 4.93$
9,000 71.25$ 2.68$ 103.68$ 5.37$
12,000 79.29$ 2.89$ 119.79$ 5.78$
15,000 87.96$ 3.06$ 137.13$ 6.12$
18,000 97.14$ 3.85$ 155.49$ 7.70$
30,000 143.34$ 4.38$ 247.89$ 8.76$
45,000 209.04$ 4.66$ 379.29$ 9.32$
60,000 278.94$ 4.83$ 519.09$ 9.65$
75,000+351.39$ 4.93$ 663.84$ 9.86$
INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY
2014-15
44
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Public Works - Water Rates
GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL)
INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY
2014-15
1 1/2 IN 0 98.53$ 2.43$ 119.33$ 4.87$
CODE 4 15,000 134.98$ 2.47$ 192.38$ 4.93$
30,000 172.03$ 2.68$ 266.33$ 5.37$
45,000 212.23$ 2.89$ 346.88$ 5.78$
60,000 255.58$ 3.06$ 433.58$ 6.12$
75,000 301.48$ 3.85$ 525.38$ 7.70$
100,000 397.73$ 4.38$ 717.88$ 8.76$
125,000 507.23$ 4.66$ 936.88$ 9.32$
150,000 623.73$ 4.83$ 1,169.88$ 9.65$
175,000+744.48$ 4.93$ 1,411.13$ 9.86$
2 IN 0 157.64$ 2.43$ 190.93$ 4.87$
SIMPLE 24,000 215.96$ 2.47$ 307.81$ 4.93$
COMPOUND 48,000 275.24$ 2.68$ 426.13$ 5.37$
CODE 5 72,000 339.56$ 2.89$ 555.01$ 5.78$
96,000 408.92$ 3.06$ 693.73$ 6.12$
120,000 482.36$ 3.85$ 840.61$ 7.70$
160000 636.36$ 4.38$ 1,148.61$ 8.76$
200,000 811.56$ 4.66$ 1,499.01$ 9.32$
240,000 997.96$ 4.83$ 1,871.81$ 9.65$
280,000+1,191.16$ 4.93$ 2,257.81$ 9.86$
2IN 0 197.05$ 2.43$ 238.67$ 4.87$
TURBINE 30,000 269.95$ 2.47$ 384.77$ 4.93$
CODE 6 60,000 344.05$ 2.68$ 532.67$ 5.37$
90,000 424.45$ 2.89$ 693.77$ 5.78$
120,000 511.15$ 3.06$ 867.17$ 6.12$
150,000 602.95$ 3.85$ 1,050.77$ 7.70$
200,000 795.45$ 4.38$ 1,435.77$ 8.76$
250,000 1,014.45$ 4.66$ 1,873.77$ 9.32$
300,000 1,247.45$ 4.83$ 2,339.77$ 9.65$
350,000+1,488.95$ 4.93$ 2,822.27$ 9.86$
45
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Public Works - Water Rates
GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL)
INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY
2014-15
3 IN 0 315.28$ 2.43$ 381.87$ 4.87$
COMPOUND 48,000 431.92$ 2.47$ 615.63$ 4.93$
CODE 7 96,000 550.48$ 2.68$ 852.27$ 5.37$
144,000 679.12$ 2.89$ 1,110.03$ 5.78$
192,000 817.84$ 3.06$ 1,387.47$ 6.12$
240,000 964.72$ 3.85$ 1,681.23$ 7.70$
320,000 1,272.72$ 4.38$ 2,297.23$ 8.76$
400,000 1,623.12$ 4.66$ 2,998.03$ 9.32$
480,000 1,995.92$ 4.83$ 3,743.63$ 9.65$
560,000+2,382.32$ 4.93$ 4,515.63$ 9.86$
3 IN 0 472.92$ 2.43$ 572.80$ 4.87$
TURBINE 72,000 647.88$ 2.47$ 923.44$ 4.93$
CODE 8 144,000 825.72$ 2.68$ 1,278.40$ 5.37$
216,000 1,018.68$ 2.89$ 1,665.04$ 5.78$
288,000 1,226.76$ 3.06$ 2,081.20$ 6.12$
408,000 1,593.96$ 3.85$ 2,815.60$ 7.70$
528,000 2,055.96$ 4.38$ 3,739.60$ 8.76$
648,000 2,581.56$ 4.66$ 4,790.80$ 9.32$
768,000 3,140.76$ 4.83$ 5,909.20$ 9.65$
888,000+3,720.36$ 4.93$ 7,067.20$ 9.86$
4 IN 0 492.63$ 2.43$ 596.67$ 4.87$
COMPOUND 75,000 674.88$ 2.47$ 961.92$ 4.93$
CODE 9 150,000 860.13$ 2.68$ 1,331.67$ 5.37$
225,000 1,061.13$ 2.89$ 1,734.42$ 5.78$
300,000 1,277.88$ 3.06$ 2,167.92$ 6.12$
425,000 1,660.38$ 3.85$ 2,932.92$ 7.70$
550,000 2,141.63$ 4.38$ 3,895.42$ 8.76$
675,000 2,689.13$ 4.66$ 4,990.42$ 9.32$
800,000 3,271.63$ 4.83$ 6,155.42$ 9.65$
925,000+3,875.38$ 4.93$ 7,361.67$ 9.86$
46
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Public Works - Water Rates
GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL)
INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY
2014-15
4 IN 0 827.62$ 2.43$ 1,002.40$ 4.87$
TURBINE 126,000 1,133.80$ 2.47$ 1,616.02$ 4.93$
CODE 10 252,000 1,445.02$ 2.68$ 2,237.20$ 5.37$
378,000 1,782.70$ 2.89$ 2,913.82$ 5.78$
504,000 2,146.84$ 3.06$ 3,642.10$ 6.12$
630,000 2,532.40$ 3.85$ 4,413.22$ 7.70$
840,000 3,340.90$ 4.38$ 6,030.22$ 8.76$
1,050,000 4,260.70$ 4.66$ 7,869.82$ 9.32$
1,260,000 5,239.30$ 4.83$ 9,827.02$ 9.65$
1,470,000+6,253.60$ 4.93$ 11,853.52$ 9.86$
6 IN 0 985.26$ 2.43$ 1,193.34$ 4.87$
COMPOUND 150,000 1,349.76$ 2.47$ 1,923.84$ 4.93$
CODE 11 300,000 1,720.26$ 2.68$ 2,663.34$ 5.37$
450,000 2,122.26$ 2.89$ 3,468.84$ 5.78$
600,000 2,555.76$ 3.06$ 4,335.84$ 6.12$
750,000 3,014.76$ 3.85$ 5,253.84$ 7.70$
1,000,000 3,977.26$ 4.38$ 7,178.84$ 8.76$
1,250,000 5,072.26$ 4.66$ 9,368.84$ 9.32$
1,500,000 6,237.26$ 4.83$ 11,698.84$ 9.65$
1,750,000+7,444.76$ 4.93$ 14,111.34$ 9.86$
6 IN 0 1,812.88$ 2.43$ 2,195.74$ 4.87$
TURBINE 276,000 2,483.56$ 2.47$ 3,539.86$ 4.93$
CODE 12 552,000 3,165.28$ 2.68$ 4,900.54$ 5.37$
828,000 3,904.96$ 2.89$ 6,382.66$ 5.78$
1,104,000 4,702.60$ 3.06$ 7,977.94$ 6.12$
1,380,000 5,547.16$ 3.85$ 9,667.06$ 7.70$
1,840,000 7,318.16$ 4.38$ 13,209.06$ 8.76$
2,300,000 9,332.96$ 4.66$ 17,238.66$ 9.32$
2,760,000 11,476.56$ 4.83$ 21,525.86$ 9.65$
3,220,000+13,698.36$ 4.93$ 25,964.86$ 9.86$
RATE 1000
BULK 7.20
CODE99
FH METER 93.64 7.20
47
City of Schertz
Schedule of Fees
Drought Contingency Surcharges 2014-15 2015-16
For the first 1,000 gallons over allocation*2.00$ 2.00$
For the second 1,000 gallons over allocation*3.00$ 3.00$
For the third 1,000 gallons over allocation*4.00$ 4.00$
For each additional 1,000 gallons over allocation*5.00$ 5.00$
Drought Contingency Violation Fines, up to 200.00$ 200.00$
*Refer to the Conservation Ordinance for all allocations
48
Agenda No. 7
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
City Council Meeting: August 11, 2015
Department: City Manager
Subject: Resolution No. 15-R-71 – Adopting
Evergreen Solutions Report on Employee
Classification and Compensation Study
BACKGROUND
City Council identified a Classification and Compensation Study for City employees as a top
priority in the City’s budget process. As the City approaches the 50,000 population mark, it is
recognized that staff knowledge, skills and abilities along with correct staffing levels are two of
the most significant factors in ensuring we reach that point successfully. Having a proper
balance of these two components also ensures that the City can continue to provide the quality of
service its citizens have come to expect.
Being mindful of this, City Council entered into a Professional Services Agreement with
Evergreen Solutions on January 27, 2015. Evergreen began their study in February 2015, with
the purpose being to analyze the City’s classification and compensation system compared to the
market and make recommendations to improve the City’s competitiveness in regards to its ability
to recruit and retain a diverse and qualified workforce. Evergreen used a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods to develop recommendations to improve the City’s
competitive position.
During the course of the study, Staff developed a comprehensive Classification and
Compensation Philosophy, which addressed the City’s desired competitive position, how
employees’ salaries are to progress, as well as the future of its compensation and classification
administration. With the best interest of the City in mind, City Council approved and adopted
this Philosophy on June 23, 2015. Evergreen was able to refer to the Philosophy when
developing and finalizing their recommendations.
Evergreen completed the study and presented their draft report in a workshop session to City
Council on July 28, 2015. Evergreen provided a definitive assessment of the City’s
compensation and classification structures, as well as its overall benefits package and detailed
the recommendations for the City moving forward. They are:
RECOMMENDATION 1: Evergreen recommends the City adopt an amended version
of its current pay plan.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Evergreen recommends the City adopts the listed
classification changes proposed in Exhibit 5D of their report.
City Council Memorandum
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION 3: Evergreen recommends that the City explore the feasibility
of increasing its contribution rates to dependent premiums so that its percentages of cost
sharing are more similar to its peer cities.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Evergreen recommends that the City conduct localized
salary surveys of market peers at regular intervals throughout the year.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Evergreen recommends that the City conduct a
comprehensive classification and compensation study every three years.
With the recommendations detailed above, the City will have the necessary tools to better
compensate its employees and recruit new talent more competitively as it approaches the 50,000
population level.
City Staff also recommends an “Early Start” option on the Evergreen implementation plans. For
FY 2014-15 City Council approved in the budget funds to act on the survey recommendations.
This “Early Start” make an initial round of adjustments before September 30, 2015 in the form of
a 1 grade increase for positions identified in Evergreen’s Year 1 implementation. These
adjustments will be made effective retroactively to October 1, 2014. The remaining grade
adjustments for Year 1 will be made affective on the first payroll of October 2015.
FISCAL IMPACT
Evergreen recommends a market based implementation schedule that is phased over four years
for a total cost of just over $2 million, which includes the full weighted cost implications of
salary adjustments.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve Resolution No. 15-R-71, accepting the Final Report and
recommendations and directing staff to take the “Early Start” option using the funds set aside in
the current budget.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. 15-R-71
Evergreen Solutions Final Draft Report
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-71
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CITY STAFF CLASSIFICATION AND
COMPENSATIONS STUDY AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Schertz (the “City”) identified performing a
classification and compensation study for City employees as a top priority in the City’s FY14-15
budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Schertz (the “City”) identified
implementation of the Evergreen classification and compensation study for City employees as a
top priority in the City’s FY15-16 budget; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into agreement with Evergreen Solutions on January 27,
2015 with the desire to conduct a survey of targeted cities, compare their classification and
compensation packages with the City’s and make recommendations to achieve optimal, fiscally
responsible competitiveness for the City employees within the market; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015 City Council adopted a Classification and Compensation
Philosophy Statement and Implementation Plan to provide guidance and direction for this study;
and
WHEREAS, Evergreen Solutions presented their report and recommendations to City
Council on July 28, 2015 and on August 4, 2015.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby accepts the Final Report and the following
recommendations from Evergreen Solutions:
RECOMMENDATION 1: Evergreen recommends the City adopt an amended
version of its current pay plan.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Evergreen recommends the City adopts the listed
classification changes proposed in Exhibit 5D of their report.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Evergreen recommends that the City explore the
feasibility of increasing its contribution rates to dependent premiums so that its
percentages of cost sharing are more similar to its peer cities.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Evergreen recommends that the City conduct
localized salary surveys of market peers at regular intervals throughout the year.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Evergreen recommends that the City conduct a
comprehensive classification and compensation study every three years.
Section 2. The City Council also directs the City to carry out “Early Start Option 3”
as identified by Evergreen and recommended by City Staff which will make an initial round of
adjustments before September 30, 2015 and make those adjustments retroactively to October 1,
2014 for all positions identified as requiring an adjustment in the first year of recommendation.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
Section 6. 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 7. 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 8. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final
passage, and it is so resolved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of August, 2015.
CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Brenda Dennis
(CITY SEAL)
Compensation and Classification Study for the
City of Schertz, TX
Draft Report
July 28, 2015
c
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1
Evergreen Solutions conducted a Comprehensive Classification and Compensation study for
the City of Schertz, TX (City) beginning in February 2015. The purpose of the study was to
analyze the City’s compensation system compared to the market and make
recommendations to improve the City’s competitiveness in regards to its ability to recruit
and retain a diverse and qualified workforce. This involved reviewing and analyzing the
internal and external equity of the City’s current classification and compensation structure
and making recommendations in response to the findings.
Evergreen Solutions utilized a method of job evaluation utilizing an online Job Assessment
Tool (JAT) to understand the current work being performed by City employees. This provided
the data for the internal equity review of the City’s classification system. External equity, or
the market competitiveness of the City’s current overall compensation structure, was
reviewed by conducting and analyzing the results of a salary and benefits survey. Ultimately,
the results of these analyses, both internal and external, were considered when making
recommendations to improve the City’s competitive market position. To achieve this goal,
Evergreen Solutions was tasked with:
• leading orientation and focus group sessions for employees and conducting
interviews with department heads;
• evaluating the City’s current salary structure to determine its strengths and
weaknesses;
• collecting classification information through the JAT to analyze the internal equity of
the City’s classifications;
• developing recommendations for improvements to classification titles and the
creation of new titles, if necessary;
• conducting market salary and benefits surveys to assess the market competitiveness
of the City’s current overall Compensation plan and to determine common benefits
offered by peer organizations;
• developing a compensation structure and slotting classifications into that structure
while ensuring internal and external equity;
• developing an implementation strategy and providing cost estimates for
implementation;
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 – Introduction City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-2
• providing the City with information and strategies regarding compensation and
classification administration;
• developing and submitting draft and final reports that summarize study findings and
recommendations.
Evergreen Solutions used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to develop
recommendations to improve the City’s competitive position. Study activities included:
• conducting a study kick-off meeting;
• conducting employee outreach;
• conducting job assessments utilizing the JAT;
• analyzing the current conditions of the City’s compensation system;
• conducting a market salary and benefits survey;
• developing classification and compensation structure recommendations;
• developing implementation options for the proposed structure;
• developing recommendations for maintaining the new system; and
• creating draft and final reports.
Kick-off Meeting
The kick-off meeting allowed members of the study team from both the City and Evergreen
Solutions to discuss different aspects of the study. During the meeting, information about
the City’s compensation and classification structures and philosophies was shared and the
work plan for the study was finalized. The meeting also provided an opportunity for
Evergreen Solutions to explain the types of data needed to begin the study.
Employee Outreach
The orientation sessions, which occurred in March 2015, provided an opportunity for
employees and supervisors to learn more information about the purpose of the study, and
receive specific information related to their participation in the study process. The focus
group meetings and department head interviews allowed City employees, supervisors, and
senior management to identify practices that were working well at the City, as well as to
suggest areas of opportunities for improvement with regard to compensation, classification,
and benefits. The feedback received during these sessions is summarized in Chapter 2 of
this report.
Classification Analysis
To perform an analysis of the City’s classification system, all employees were asked to
complete a JAT in which they had the opportunity to describe the work they perform in their
own words. Supervisors were then asked to review their employees’ JATs and provide
additional information as needed about the classifications. The information provided in the
completed JATs was utilized in the classification analysis in two ways. First, the work
described was reviewed to ensure that classification titles were being utilized appropriately.
Second, the JATs were evaluated to quantify, by a scoring method, each classification’s
Chapter 1 – Introduction City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-3
relative value within the organization. Each classification’s score was based on employee
and supervisor responses to the JAT, and the scores allowed for a comparison of
classifications across the City.
Analysis of Current Conditions
The City’s current employee database was analyzed with a close look at how the current pay
plans were being utilized. The current pay plans, the progression of employee salaries
through pay grades, employee tenure, and the distribution of employees among the City’s
departments were all examined during this process. Chapter 3 of this report summarizes the
findings of this analysis.
Market Analysis
For the market analysis, peer organizations were identified that compete with the City for
human resources and provide similar services. A number of classifications were selected as
benchmarks for the survey. These positions represented a cross-section of the departments
and levels of work at the City. After the selection of peers and benchmarks, a survey tool
was developed for the collection of salary range data for each benchmark. A survey tool was
also developed to collect data about the core and fringe benefits offered by the identified
peer organizations. The salary and benefits data collected during this survey were analyzed,
and a summary of the data can be found in Chapter 4 of this report.
Recommendations
During the recommendation phase of the study, Evergreen Solutions developed a market-
based pay plan and slotted classifications into the pay plan based on internal and external
equity. Next, implementation options were developed to transition employee salaries into
the new pay grades, and the associated costs of adjusting employee salaries were
estimated. Information has been provided to the City on how to execute the recommended
salary adjustments, as well as how to maintain the recommended classification and
compensation system over time. A summary of the recommendations made by Evergreen
Solutions regarding the classification and compensation structure can be found in Chapter 5
of this report.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-1
In March of 2015, the Evergreen Solutions team performed a series of employee focus
groups and interviews for the City of Schertz, Texas. The aim of these focus groups was to
gather employee responses pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the City’s current
compensation, classification and benefits systems.
This chapter seeks to identify and summarize overall feedback communicated by all focus
groups. The views in this chapter are intended to demonstrate the general themes and
trends identified across all employees interviewed, and are not to reflect the opinions of any
given individual. Findings from these focus groups and interviews are separated by category
below.
General Feedback
When asked as to why they chose to work for the City, why they have stayed, and what they
believed was working well, employees mentioned primary reasons such as the benefits
package as well as the job stability that comes with working for the City.
• The majority of employees considered proximity to the workplace a top reason for
deciding to work for the City.
• The overall benefits package was considered one of the leading aspects as to why
employees originally came to work for the City.
• Employees routinely cited that retirement benefits along with various fringe
benefits are currently working very well, and should not be altered.
• Time vested in the organization remained a major factor as to why employees
have continued to be employed with the City.
• Several employees noted that opportunity for advancement was a distinct
advantage of being employed by the City.
• Universally, employees stated that they genuinely enjoy working for the City of
Schertz, Texas.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 2 – Summary of Employee
Outreach
Chapter 2 – Summary of Employee Outreach City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2
Compensation Issues
City staff presented the following thoughts related to compensation:
• Many employees suspected that recruitment and retention issues within the
organization partially stem from the compensation offered to certain positions.
• Employees regularly stated compression issues as one of the major
organizational concerns the City should focus on.
• Employees detailed that the existing compression problems created an
employee morale issue.
• Employees pointed out that it remains difficult to retain quality employees since
the City is having trouble competing with other organizations in terms of salary.
• A number of employees explained that the pay incentive for someone to obtain
a certain certification in their respective field remains very limited.
• Employees identified that in some cases people tend to gain experience with the
City and then later leave for higher compensation elsewhere.
• In general, employees revealed that high turnover exists across select positions
and departments, partly due to uncompetitive market pay.
Classification Issues
Many employees provided Evergreen Solutions with issues specific to individual
classifications, which are then analyzed during the Job Assessment Tool JAT review. Some of
the issues that employees emphasized are listed below:
• Almost all employees considered recruitment and retention to be leading
concerns across the organization.
• In general, employees expressed that certain job classifications are fairly
outdated, and need to be updated in order to attract qualified employees.
• Several employees mentioned that current job descriptions do not clearly
represent the actual duties required of certain positions.
• Employees noted that compression of classifications existed in the organization,
and that certain classifications needed to include more levels.
• Employees often cited that recruitment and retention issues typically lead to
poor employee morale due to an overall shortage of personnel.
Chapter 2 – Summary of Employee Outreach City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-3
Benefits
City employees offered the following observations related to benefits:
• In general, employees expressed satisfaction in the overall benefits offered by
the City.
• The majority of employees believed that the individual health insurance plan is
fair, but felt that coverage for an entire family is extremely expensive.
• Overall, employees noted that retirement perks were a major advantage of
working for the City.
• Employees often revealed that they were not rewarded for accrued unused sick
leave.
• Several employees would like to see an improved paid-time-off system in place
for leave policies.
• Many employees mentioned that they were deterred from purchasing family
healthcare coverage due to the high deductibles that continue to increase each
year.
Market Peers
Focus group participants were asked to name the organizations that they considered to be
market-peers. Responses from employees were considered when selecting organizations to
be surveyed in the market study. Participants named the following organizations as the
City’s biggest competitors in terms of employee compensation, benefits, and other intrinsic
qualities such as working conditions:
• City of Selma;
• City of New Braunfels;
• City of Seguin;
• Guadalupe County;
• City of Round Rock;
• City of Cibolo;
• City of Sugarland;
• City of Pflugerville;
• City of University City;
Chapter 2 – Summary of Employee Outreach City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-4
• City of Georgetown;
• City of Arlington;
• Travis County;
• City of Austin; and
• Colleges or Universities nearby.
Benchmark Positions
Employees were asked which positions within the City presented the greatest challenges
with regard to recruitment and retention. Evergreen Solutions asked employees which
particular positions were currently experiencing high turnover and recruitment issues. These
positions provided a basic framework for populating the market salary survey. Employees
responded with the following areas and specific positions:
• Police Officers;
• Emergency Medical Services in general;
• Building Inspectors;
• Entry Level Information Technology positions;
• Court Clerks;
• Public Works Department - streets positions;
• Police Dispatchers;
• Crime Scene Technicians;
• Development Services – Plans Examiner positions;
• Animal Services;
• Virtual Services Librarians; and
• Engineering positions.
Chapter 2 – Summary of Employee Outreach City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-5
Performance Evaluation
Employees were asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the current performance
evaluation system and offered the following remarks:
• In general, employees expressed dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation
system in place, despite efforts to improve it.
• Some employees mentioned that they should be able to evaluate their
supervisors, since employees are able to evaluate themselves.
• Many employees stated that they would like to see consistency within
departments with respect to the employee performance evaluation system.
• Employees believed performance evaluations should be executed more often.
Summary
As a whole, the employees of Schertz, Texas take pride in their work and strive to make
distinct contributions to their organization and their overall community. The response
received by Evergreen Solutions provided a great foundation for the development of
recommendations for the City.
The majority of potential issues highlighted by employees are common to find in other
publicly funded organizations. Employees recognized that the larger issue is the quality of
job candidates and related retention issues. They believed that many employees work for
the City long enough to gain the experience and training they need before transferring to
other organizations for higher pay.
The employees of the City were generally positive when discussing their passion for their
work, and cited the organization as a great place to work with a number of distinct
advantages for employees. The information from employees expressed in this chapter will
be utilized throughout the remainder of this study in order to arrive at appropriate solutions
for the City of Schertz, Texas.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-1
The purpose of this chapter is to address the current pay structure of the City and its
effectiveness. Additionally, this assessment of the City’s current conditions aims to diagnose
any potential issues that may be occurring within the City’s compensation structure, as well
as identify potential strengths that Evergreen’s recommendations can build upon. The data
and analyses found within this chapter are reflective of the current conditions at the City,
and should be regarded as a snap shot time.
Included within this chapter are the following sections:
3.1 Compensation Philosophy
3.2 Pay Plan Analysis
3.3 Grade Placement Analysis
3.4 Quartile and Class Time Analysis
3.5 A Chapter Summary
3.1 Compensation Philosophy
During the course of the study, the City adopted a comprehensive compensation philosophy
that addresses its desired competitive position, how employee salaries are to progress, as
well as the future of its compensation and classification administration. Evergreen found the
City’s philosophy to be transparent and equitably designed, and feels that it effectively
communicates the City’s strategy for addressing the subject of compensation to employees.
For reference, the City’s stated compensation philosophy is located in Appendix III of this
report.
3.2 Pay Plan Analysis
An organized pay plan is important because it allows employees to understand the process
of salary progression and can clarify issues of both internal and external fairness of
compensation. The City’s current pay plan is a step plan, including 31 pay grades which are
currently occupied. A list of these occupied pay grades and their respective minimum,
midpoint, and maximum salaries are shown in Exhibit 3A. Also shown in this exhibit are the
range spreads of each grade, which is a measure of the percent difference between the
minimum and maximum of the range, and the midpoint progression, which is the percent
differential between successive midpoints.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 3 – Assessment of Current
Conditions
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-2
EXHIBIT 3A
CURRENT PAY PLAN
All of the City’s occupied pay grades have a 32.0 percent range spread, and midpoint
progression between grades is generally 4.0 percent. When a pay plan structure is
comprised of smaller range spreads and midpoint progressions, such as those the City uses,
it results in a plan that consists of a higher number of unique salary grades, as more grades
are needed in order to bridge the gap between the lowest appropriate salary range and the
highest. The advantage of this type of structure is that a larger number of salary grades
allow for more individualized compensation for positions in order to ensure they are
equitable.
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range
Spread
Midpoint
Progression Employees
5 $17,615.52 $20,234.24 $23,244.00 32%-2
7 $19,067.36 $21,902.40 $25,159.68 32%8.2%1
12 $23,244.00 $26,698.88 $30,669.60 32%21.9%19
14 $25,159.68 $28,901.60 $33,196.80 32%8.3%25
15 $26,176.80 $30,068.48 $34,536.32 32%4.0%2
17 $28,333.76 $32,547.84 $37,385.92 32%8.2%31
19 $30,669.60 $35,231.04 $40,468.48 32%8.2%13
20 $31,909.28 $36,651.68 $42,101.28 32%4.0%9
22 $34,536.32 $39,673.92 $45,572.80 32%8.2%9
23 $35,934.08 $41,275.52 $47,415.68 32%4.0%60
24 $37,385.92 $42,943.68 $49,329.28 32%4.0%8
25 $38,896.00 $44,680.48 $51,321.92 32%4.0%3
26 $40,468.48 $46,483.84 $53,395.68 32%4.0%30
27 $42,101.28 $48,362.08 $55,552.64 32%4.0%3
28 $43,804.80 $50,317.28 $57,796.96 32%4.0%20
30 $47,415.68 $54,462.72 $62,562.24 32%8.2%24
31 $49,329.28 $56,665.44 $65,091.52 32%4.0%7
32 $51,321.92 $58,953.44 $67,718.56 32%4.0%8
33 $53,395.68 $61,335.04 $70,455.84 32%4.0%8
34 $55,552.64 $63,814.40 $73,301.28 32%4.0%6
35 $57,796.96 $66,391.52 $76,263.20 32%4.0%8
36 $60,130.72 $69,074.72 $79,345.76 32%4.0%4
37 $62,562.24 $71,864.00 $82,548.96 32%4.0%2
39 $67,718.56 $77,787.84 $89,352.64 32%8.2%1
40 $70,455.84 $80,928.64 $92,965.60 32%4.0%3
41 $73,301.28 $84,200.48 $96,720.00 32%4.0%2
42 $76,263.20 $87,603.36 $100,626.24 32%4.0%2
43 $79,345.76 $91,141.44 $104,690.56 32%4.0%1
44 $82,548.96 $94,823.04 $108,921.28 32%4.0%7
48 $96,720.00 $111,101.12 $127,618.40 32%17.2%1
50 $104,690.56 $120,257.28 $138,139.04 32%8.2%2
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-3
Another important aspect of the pay plan to assess is utilization of grades. While it can be
expected that a larger portion of an employee base will be located near the bottom and
middle portions of a pay plan, there are several single or low incumbent grades throughout
the different levels of the pay plan. A high number of low incumbent grades can signify there
are an unnecessary number of grades in the structure, and there may be room for
simplification.
3.3 Grade Placement Analysis
For the purpose of assessing how well the City’s compensation structure is performing,
employee salary distribution is analyzed for each pay grade. A total of 16 as needed
employees were not included in this section due to the lack of a set salary to measure
against their range. Exhibit 3B shows the number of employees in each grade who have a
current salary at either the minimum or maximum of the range.
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-4
EXHIBIT 3B
EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OF PAY GRADE
This analysis is useful for identifying if the City has unusually high number of employees at
either the pay range minimum or maximum points. An organization with a large percentage
of employees at the minimum can cause employee morale issues, as newly hired employees
may have a salary similar to those with more experience. Conversely, an inordinate number
of employees at the grade maximum can indicate that employees are capping out in their
current salary range too frequently, and promotion to additional grades or wider range
spreads may be necessary to prevent employee retention issues.
Grade Employees # at Min % at Min # at Max % at Max
5 2 2 100.0%0 0.0%
7 1 1 100.0%0 0.0%
12 19 12 63.2%0 0.0%
14 25 12 48.0%0 0.0%
15 2 1 50.0%0 0.0%
17 31 6 19.4%1 3.2%
19 13 5 38.5%0 0.0%
20 9 2 22.2%0 0.0%
22 9 0 0.0%0 0.0%
23 60 27 45.0%3 5.0%
24 8 2 25.0%0 0.0%
25 3 0 0.0%0 0.0%
26 30 5 16.7%3 10.0%
27 3 0 0.0%0 0.0%
28 20 3 15.0%0 0.0%
30 24 5 20.8%1 4.2%
31 7 1 14.3%0 0.0%
32 8 0 0.0%0 0.0%
33 8 0 0.0%0 0.0%
34 6 0 0.0%0 0.0%
35 8 0 0.0%0 0.0%
36 4 0 0.0%0 0.0%
37 2 0 0.0%0 0.0%
39 1 0 0.0%0 0.0%
40 3 1 33.3%0 0.0%
41 2 0 0.0%0 0.0%
42 2 0 0.0%0 0.0%
43 1 0 0.0%0 0.0%
44 7 0 0.0%0 0.0%
48 1 0 0.0%0 0.0%
50 2 0 0.0%0 0.0%
Total 305 85 27.9%8 2.6%
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-5
The City currently sees 85 employees at their respective pay range minimum (26.5 percent)
and only eight employees at the pay range maximum (2.5 percent). While there are few
employees at the maximum of the salary ranges, the large percentage of employees at the
minimum can be a sign of salaries being compressed towards the bottom of the range.
Whether or not this is actually a case of compression or simply a large number of employees
new to their classification or the organization will be revealed in the quartile and tenure
section of this chapter.
Another useful grade placement analysis is Midpoint Analysis. Midpoint Analysis reveals the
distribution of employee salaries relative to their respective salary range midpoint. A skewed
distribution of employee salaries either above or below the midpoint can be reflective of an
outdated pay plan or limited progression of employee salaries throughout their ranges.
Exhibit 3C shows the results of the midpoint analysis conducted for the City.
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-6
EXHIBIT 3C
EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE
Of the total 305 employees included in this analysis, 267 (87.5 percent) currently fall below
their salary range midpoint, while 38 (12.5 percent) are above their midpoint. This skewed
distribution indicates that the City is experiencing issues with employee salaries not
progressing to the second half of the range. As mentioned previously, this can present a
morale issue when hiring new employees into the organization as salaries of existing
employees are compressed with those new hires.
Grade Employees # < Mid % < Mid # > Mid % > Mid
5 2 2 100.0%0 0.0%
7 1 1 100.0%0 0.0%
12 19 17 89.5%2 10.5%
14 25 25 100.0%0 0.0%
15 2 2 100.0%0 0.0%
17 31 26 83.9%5 16.1%
19 13 12 92.3%1 7.7%
20 9 9 100.0%0 0.0%
22 9 7 77.8%2 22.2%
23 60 36 60.0%8 13.3%
24 8 6 75.0%2 25.0%
25 3 3 100.0%0 0.0%
26 30 26 86.7%4 13.3%
27 3 3 100.0%0 0.0%
28 20 18 90.0%2 10.0%
30 24 20 83.3%4 16.7%
31 7 7 100.0%0 0.0%
32 8 8 100.0%0 0.0%
33 8 7 87.5%1 12.5%
34 6 6 100.0%0 0.0%
35 8 6 75.0%2 25.0%
36 4 4 100.0%0 0.0%
37 2 1 50.0%1 50.0%
39 1 1 100.0%0 0.0%
40 3 3 100.0%0 0.0%
41 2 2 100.0%0 0.0%
42 2 0 0.0%2 100.0%
43 1 1 100.0%0 0.0%
44 7 6 85.7%1 14.3%
48 1 1 100.0%0 0.0%
50 2 1 50.0%1 50.0%
Total 305 267 87.5%38 12.5%
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-7
3.4 Quartile and Tenure Analysis
Although midpoint analysis allows insight to the distribution of employees above and below
their respective midpoints, quartile analysis takes that further and has the ability to reveal
the clustering of salaries in any given quartile. Quartile analysis is performed by taking
employee salary ranges and dividing them in four equal sections. The first quartile
represents the 0-25 percent of employee salary ranges, while the second quartile
represents the 26-50 percent range; the third quartile represents the 51-75 percent range,
and the fourth quartile the final 76-100 percent range. By analyzing class tenure along with
quartile analysis, context is granted to the distribution of employee salaries throughout the
quartiles.
Exhibit 3D shows the results of this analysis, detailing each pay grade and the distribution of
employees within each grade across the quartiles, along with the average class tenure.
Exhibit 3E graphically depicts how employees within each pay grade are distributed among
the four quartiles.
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-8
EXHIBIT 3D
QUARTILE AND CLASS TIME ANALYSIS
# of Emp Class Time # of Emp Class Time # of Emp Class Time # of Emp Class Time
5 2 2 1.3 ------
7 1 1 0.7 ------
12 19 16 3.6 2 3.3 --1 6.6
14 25 24 2.0 1 3.8 ----
15 2 2 1.5 ------
17 31 21 2.8 5 5.0 3 5.8 2 10.4
19 13 12 2.1 ----1 14.4
20 9 8 2.5 1 1.3 ----
22 9 5 2.6 2 10.9 1 4.2 1 12.9
23 44 31 3.1 5 6.4 3 7.3 5 12.6
24 8 4 2.3 2 7.0 --2 4.9
25 3 2 5.5 1 6.6 ----
26 30 21 2.8 5 6.8 1 9.8 3 13.3
27 3 2 4.9 1 8.6 ----
28 20 11 2.5 7 3.9 1 0.2 1 5.8
30 24 17 2.8 3 3.8 3 7.3 1 21.1
31 7 4 3.5 3 3.2 ----
32 8 8 4.5 ------
33 8 2 0.7 5 6.1 1 6.6 --
34 6 6 4.5 ------
35 8 5 3.8 1 8.6 2 3.8 --
36 4 3 2.7 1 1.9 ----
37 2 1 2.1 ----1 0.8
39 1 1 3.6 ------
40 3 1 1.1 2 5.1 ----
41 2 2 1.2 ------
42 2 ----2 2.7 --
43 1 1 6.0 ------
44 7 2 6.7 4 10.6 --1 2.1
48 1 1 4.3 ------
50 2 --1 3.2 1 3.2 --
Overall Total 305 216 3.0 52 5.6 18 5.1 19 9.5
4th QuartileGradeTotal
Employees
1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-9
EXHIBIT 3E
QUARTILE ANALYSIS (PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES PER PAY GRADE)
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-10
The quartile and class time analysis confirmed the distribution observed in the grade
placement analysis in which the majority of employees are compressed towards the bottom
of their salary range. More than two-thirds (70.8 percent) of employees are located in the
first quartile of their salary range. To assess the appropriateness of this distribution, the
time spent in the classification by employees is also analyzed.
Average class time is as follows: 3.0 years in the first quartile, 5.6 years in the second
quartile, 5.1 years in the third quartile, and 9.5 years in the fourth. While the average time
spent in class generally increases as employees progress through their salary range, it does
drop from the second to the third quartile slightly. Given the low average class time of
employees in the first quartile, it is appropriate to see a large number of employees
occupying the lower portions of the salary range.
3.5 Summary
Overall, the City’s compensation plan has a solid, equitable structure on which to grow. The
key points of the current pay plan are:
• The pay plan is equitably designed with uniform range spreads and generally uniform
midpoint progression; however, a number of pay grades are unoccupied or possess
few incumbents.
• Roughly a quarter of the employees in the City are residing at the salary range
minimum, while few are currently at their salary range maximum.
• While there are some irregularities, the City generally sees normal progression of
employee salaries through the quartiles with increasing time spent in class.
The analyses within this chapter reveal that the City’s current structure was equitably
designed, and while it may appear that salary compression is an issue at the City, the
distribution of salaries is primarily driven by a workforce that is largely new to their current
positions. The information from this chapter is used in conjunction with the analyses found
in the Market Summary Chapter, along with City Project Management feedback in order to
formulate recommendations that build upon the strengths of the City’s current system.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-1 Page 4-1
This chapter provides the City with a market analysis in which the City’s salary ranges and
benefit offerings were compared to the salary ranges and benefits at peer organizations. The
data from targeted market peers were used to evaluate the overall compensation and
benefits at the City at the time of this study. It is important to note that the market
comparisons contained herein do not translate at the individual level and are instead used
to provide the City with overall analyses. The utilized methodology is not intended to
evaluate particular salaries or benefits offered to individuals because individual
compensation packages (including benefits) are determined through a combination of
factors, which could include: the demand for a particular job, a candidate’s prior experience,
or an individual’s negotiation skills during the hiring process.
Furthermore, it should be noted that market comparisons are best thought of as a snapshot
of current market conditions. In other words, market conditions change, and in some cases
change quickly; so while market surveys are useful for making updates to salary structures
or benefits offered to employees, they must be done at regular intervals if the City wishes to
stay current with its market peers and market salary trends.
4.1 MARKET SALARY SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Evergreen Solutions collected pay range information from target peers in the City’s
competitive market utilizing a survey tool. Development of this tool included selecting
benchmark classifications at the City to be surveyed. The desired outcome of benchmarking
is to select a cross-section of the City’s classifications, so that the surveyed positions make
up a subset of all work areas and levels of classifications at the City. The classification title,
a description of assigned duties, and the education and experience requirements were
provided in the survey tool for each benchmarked classification.
The target peers were selected by Evergreen Solutions, which considered input from
employees during the outreach sessions, as well from the City’s project management team.
Several factors were utilized when developing the peer organization list, including
geographic proximity, organization size, type of work performed, and the relative population
size being served by the organization. All data collected were adjusted for cost of living using
a national cost of living index factor; this allowed salary dollars from organizations outside of
the immediate area to be adjusted for the cost of living relative to the City. A total of 26
public agencies were selected as target peers. Of those, reliable data was collected from 20.
Exhibit 4A provides the list of 20 market peers from which data were collected.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 4 – Market Summary
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-2
EXHIBIT 4A
MARKET PEERS WITH RELIABLE DATA
Peer Data Collected
Cities
City of Austin
City of Boerne
City of Cedar Park
City of Conroe
City of Georgetown
City of Kyle
City of New Braunfels
City of Pflugerville
City of Round Rock
City of San Antonio
City of San Marcos
City of Seguin
City of Selma
City of Temple
Counties
Comal County
Guadalupe County
Washington County*
Other Organizations
New Braunfels Utilities
San Antonio Water System
San Marcos Hays County EMS*
*Target Organization included for EMS positions
Exhibit 4B provides a summary of the results of the salary market data. The exhibit contains
the following information:
Each classification that was benchmarked.
The market salary range information for each classification. This includes the
average of the peers’ responses for the salary range minimum, midpoint, and
maximum for each benchmarked classification. The survey range minimum indicates
the average minimum salary for each classification provided by the peer
organizations. Survey range midpoint provides the average midpoint of the peer
respondents for each classification surveyed. Survey range maximum provides the
average maximum of the survey participants for each classification surveyed.
The result of the City’s current salary range compared to the market, or the percent
differentials. The percent differentials are shown for survey market range minimum,
midpoint, and maximum. The differentials specify how the City’s current salary ranges
compare to the market average shown in the exhibit. A positive differential indicates
the City is above market for that classification at the range minimum, midpoint, or
maximum. A negative differential indicates the City is below market for that
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-3
classification. In the next to last row of the exhibit, the average percent differentials
for the range minimum, midpoint and maximum are provided. This is derived by
averaging all of the classifications’ percent differentials. In order to consider the data
valid and accurate, Evergreen Solutions typically desires a minimum of five
responses for each surveyed classification when averaging the overall percent
differentials for an organization. As such, any classification with less than five
responses was omitted and the overall average percent differentials (after removing
those classifications with low peer responses) are displayed in the final row of the
exhibit.
The survey average range. The second column from the right provides the average
range width for each classification surveyed, which is determined by the average
minimum and average maximum salaries of the respondents. The average range
spread for all of the classifications is provided in the final row of the exhibit.
The total number of survey responses for each classification. This information is
provided in the final column, and the average number of responses for all of the
classifications is provided in the final row.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-4
EXHIBIT 4B
SALARY SURVEY MARKET SUMMARY
Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff
Administrative Assistant (Human Resources)$31,258.75 2.0%$35,929.81 2.9%$42,408.90 -0.7%42.3%12.0
Animal Services Officer $29,046.91 -2.5%$34,867.80 -6.1%$41,779.09 -11.8%45.5%15.0
Assistant Chief Inspector $45,323.80 -3.5%$55,410.25 -9.1%$65,496.69 -13.3%41.0%4.0
Assistant Director of Finance $67,646.82 -12.5%$83,088.77 -19.1%$97,780.94 -23.2%50.1%9.0
Assistant Fire Chief $84,675.20 -15.5%$91,521.77 -7.7%$105,916.19 -9.5%25.8%5.0
Assistant to the City Manager $55,176.74 -7.5%$65,590.13 -10.2%$76,806.92 -13.4%18.9%7.0
Battalion Chief $79,031.85 -36.7%$81,197.60 -21.1%$84,736.97 -11.1%9.9%5.0
Building Inspector $37,694.78 -9.1%$45,998.61 -14.8%$55,233.30 -21.2%43.2%11.0
Building Maintenance Foreman $38,138.40 -10.4%$47,110.26 -17.6%$54,827.99 -20.3%42.7%8.0
City Engineer $82,159.60 0.5%$97,919.36 -2.3%$113,733.27 -4.4%55.2%10.0
City Marshal $56,411.39 23.0%$76,155.33 10.4%$95,899.27 0.8%70.0%1.0
City Secretary $62,378.19 11.5%$75,430.61 7.7%$93,237.17 -0.3%54.8%8.0
Civic & Community Centers Coordinator $38,059.07 9.6%$49,133.11 -0.6%$60,405.87 -8.7%48.2%5.0
Code Enforcement Officer $32,748.74 5.2%$40,521.46 -1.2%$47,978.39 -5.3%42.3%11.0
Communications Manager (Police)$56,928.74 -20.1%$68,845.99 -25.2%$80,285.86 -28.3%47.3%6.0
Communications Officer (Police)$33,010.86 -7.6%$40,486.35 -13.8%$46,741.43 -15.5%44.9%11.0
Communications Shift Supervisor (Police)$40,728.74 -13.3%$49,856.62 -19.6%$57,999.77 -22.3%40.8%9.0
Computer Technician I - Web Technician $41,001.71 -28.5%$51,491.46 -39.1%$61,981.22 -47.2%45.7%6.0
Court Director $51,504.54 7.3%$66,088.70 -2.6%$78,455.21 -7.0%47.3%11.0
Customer Relations/311 Representative $25,740.36 9.2%$30,973.27 5.7%$36,370.99 2.7%44.1%7.0
Deputy Court Clerk $28,342.64 0.0%$34,266.36 -4.3%$40,920.44 -9.5%47.5%11.0
Deputy Marshal Lieutenant $36,858.97 33.7%$43,507.68 32.5%$50,156.39 31.6%40.7%3.0
Drainage Worker I $24,367.99 3.1%$30,459.80 -4.4%$36,551.61 -10.1%47.8%5.0
Economic Development Analyst $41,737.58 15.4%$52,495.83 8.2%$62,966.17 3.3%47.7%6.0
EMS Director $55,032.72 33.3%$74,766.24 21.9%$94,499.75 13.2%72.3%2.0
EMS Supervisor $54,881.87 5.0%$76,030.49 -13.4%$97,179.11 -27.4%77.1%1.0
Events Manager $49,896.90 -5.2%$60,820.85 -10.6%$71,021.48 -13.5%54.3%4.0
Executive Director (Assistant City Manager)$112,402.56 -7.4%$135,463.18 -11.6%$158,342.60 -14.6%57.3%9.0
Field Training Officer -------0.0
Fire Apparatus Operator $55,544.40 -26.8%$60,628.19 -19.3%$64,889.12 -12.3%17.1%6.0
Fire Marshal $61,179.31 -$75,233.94 -$89,288.56 -48.2%3.0
Firefighter $42,619.20 -18.6%$49,023.78 -17.6%$56,247.76 -18.6%35.6%10.0
Fleet Mechanic I $30,793.73 -0.4%$37,832.18 -6.4%$43,406.39 -7.3%47.1%12.0
General Services Technician I (N)$27,383.57 -17.8%$32,309.77 -19.9%$37,239.20 -21.4%41.9%11.0
GIS Coordinator $54,720.24 -10.9%$65,632.08 -14.7%$78,367.29 -20.4%47.9%10.0
Graduate Engineer $48,755.88 5.0%$60,092.67 -1.0%$71,827.90 -6.1%52.8%5.0
# Resp.Classification Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg
Range
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-5
EXHIBIT 4B (CONTINUED)
SALARY SURVEY MARKET SUMMARY
Average % Diff Average % Diff Average % Diff
Human Resources Director $87,601.60 -14.9%$109,425.96 -23.7%$132,645.75 -31.8%55.1%8.0
Human Resources Generalist $38,002.44 -5.8%$47,784.91 -14.7%$54,564.61 -15.1%46.0%9.0
Information Technology Director $76,734.92 -0.6%$92,523.85 -4.6%$111,245.31 -10.6%44.1%7.0
Library Clerk II $28,451.89 -0.4%$32,685.63 0.5%$37,466.44 -0.2%43.0%10.0
Lieutenant $63,024.29 -22.8%$70,410.23 -18.3%$72,820.96 -7.5%22.4%8.0
Meter Technician I $29,758.75 -13.7%$35,714.48 -17.6%$40,417.37 -17.0%40.6%8.0
P/T Circulation Clerk (20 Hrs)$24,448.76 -5.2%$29,615.48 -9.9%$34,781.34 -13.4%43.5%10.0
P/T Library Page (10 Hrs)$21,525.86 -22.2%$24,486.73 -19.9%$27,928.50 -20.2%34.3%4.0
Paramedic $42,803.88 -19.1%$51,857.99 -24.4%$60,173.92 -26.9%41.3%2.0
Park Manager $52,725.95 5.1%$62,399.89 3.1%$71,883.07 1.9%50.5%10.0
Park Worker I $25,469.90 -1.2%$30,668.33 -5.1%$35,498.91 -6.9%43.3%13.0
Patrol Lieutenant $71,914.15 -19.6%$79,662.94 -14.2%$85,484.93 -7.7%18.5%11.0
Patrol Officer $46,020.51 -13.7%$54,030.12 -15.1%$61,075.94 -14.4%39.0%15.0
Patrol Sergeant $59,082.51 -10.7%$67,057.76 -8.3%$77,104.52 -9.4%27.2%13.0
Permit Technician $28,810.50 -1.7%$34,201.91 -4.1%$40,705.57 -8.9%42.6%10.0
Police Chief $93,307.80 -13.0%$112,464.83 -17.5%$136,874.29 -25.7%50.8%9.0
Public Works Director $88,302.32 -7.0%$109,425.96 -14.3%$131,642.51 -20.9%57.7%8.0
Public Works Inspector $36,376.86 -1.2%$44,467.29 -6.7%$52,516.08 -10.8%39.9%8.0
Publications Editor $48,142.71 -1.5%$59,677.32 -8.5%$70,232.76 -12.3%48.2%5.0
Purchasing & Asset Manager $62,514.86 -8.2%$72,415.08 -8.0%$82,785.59 -8.6%44.7%9.0
Risk and Safety Specialist $43,936.71 -17.5%$56,965.38 -31.4%$69,994.06 -41.9%60.1%2.0
Senior Administrative Assistant $35,099.52 6.1%$44,394.42 -2.4%$53,489.79 -8.4%47.2%6.0
Senior Payroll Specialist $36,372.88 -1.2%$44,234.28 -6.1%$51,485.63 -8.6%45.3%7.0
Senior Planner $51,501.04 -4.4%$61,802.85 -8.0%$76,315.96 -17.2%48.3%10.0
Senior Purchasing Specialist $35,694.36 -3.4%$44,507.73 -11.1%$53,131.71 -16.6%47.7%8.0
Senior Systems Engineer $52,132.98 -9.9%$59,769.77 -8.7%$67,406.56 -7.7%35.7%4.0
Serviceman I $26,779.05 -6.4%$32,348.98 -10.9%$38,140.44 -14.9%42.0%8.0
Serviceman II $33,620.44 -18.7%$39,750.02 -21.0%$46,224.14 -23.6%47.4%7.0
Staff Accountant $44,704.96 5.7%$56,844.58 -3.4%$66,455.90 -6.2%42.7%7.0
Street Foreman $38,662.38 -11.9%$47,594.81 -18.8%$56,302.77 -23.5%40.9%13.0
Street Worker I $25,686.33 -2.1%$30,458.19 -4.4%$36,481.02 -9.9%44.8%10.0
Street Worker II/Sweeper Operator $27,199.99 4.0%$33,993.85 -3.5%$40,978.89 -9.6%47.8%8.0
Training & Safety Officer $43,350.07 22.0%$52,650.46 18.3%$61,950.85 15.5%42.3%2.0
Water & Wastewater Foreman $40,623.02 -17.6%$50,414.02 -25.9%$60,741.02 -33.3%45.8%10.0
Overall Average (All Surveyed Classifications)-4.8%-9.0%-12.4%44.4%7.7
*Overall Average (With Low Responses Removed)-6.4%-10.1%-13.3%
# Resp.Classification Survey Minimum Survey Midpoint Survey Maximum Survey Avg
Range
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-6
Market Minimums
A starting point of the analysis is to compare the peer average market minimum for each
classification to the City’s range minimums. Market minimums are generally considered as
an entry level salary for employees who meet the minimum qualifications of a classification.
Those employees with salaries at or near the range minimums are unlikely to have mastered
the job and probably have not acquired the skills and experience necessary to be fully
proficient in their classification.
As Exhibit 4B above illustrates, the City is, on average, approximately 4.8 percent below
market at the minimum of the respective salary ranges for all surveyed classifications.
However, when removing those classifications with low responses (i.e., less than five), the
City is, on average, 6.4 percent below market at the minimum. Several conclusions can be
drawn based on the collected data:
The surveyed position differentials ranged from 36.7 percent below market minimum
in the case of the Battalion Chief classification to 33.7 percent above market for the
Deputy Marshal Lieutenant classification.
Of the 68 positions with market minimum percent differentials, 49 classifications
(72.1 percent) were below market at the minimum.
Three surveyed positions were greater than 25.0 percent below market. These
classifications are listed below with their market minimum differentials:
o Fire Battalion Chief, 36.7 percent below market
o Computer Technician I – Web Technician, 28.5 percent below market
o Fire Apparatus Operator, 26.8 percent below market
Market Midpoints
This section explores the comparison between the average peer midpoints and the
midpoints for classifications at the City. Market midpoints are important to consider because
they are commonly recognized as the salary point at which employees have achieved full
proficiency, and are performing satisfactorily in their classification. As such, midpoint is
often considered as the salary point at which a fully proficient employee could expect their
salary to be placed.
As Exhibit 4B above illustrates, the City is, on average, 9.0 percent below market at the
midpoint of the respective salary ranges, for all surveyed classifications. However, when
removing those classifications with low responses (i.e., less than five), the City is, on
average, 10.1 percent below market at the midpoint. Based on the collected data, the
following observations can be made:
The surveyed position differentials ranged from 39.1 percent below market midpoint
in the case of the Computer Technician I – Web Technician classification to 32.5
percent above market for the Deputy Marshal Lieutenant classification.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-7
Of the 68 positions with market midpoint percent differentials, 58 classifications
(85.3 percent) are below market at the midpoint.
Four surveyed positions were greater than 25.0 percent below market at midpoint.
These classifications are listed below with their market midpoint differentials:
o Computer Technician I – Web Technician, 39.1 percent below market
o Risk and Safety Specialist, 31.4 percent below market
o Water & Wastewater Foreman, 25.9 percent below market
o Communications Manager (Police), 25.2 percent below market
Market Maximums
In this section, the peer salary range maximums are compared to the City’s range
maximums for each benchmarked classification. The market maximum is significant as it
represents the upper limit salary that an organization might provide to retain and/or reward
experienced and high performing incumbents. Additionally, being competitive at the
maximum allows organizations to attract highly qualified employees for an in-demand
classification.
As Exhibit 4B above illustrates, the City is, on average, 12.4 percent below market at the
maximum of the respective salary ranges for all surveyed classifications. However, when
removing those classifications with low responses (i.e., less than five), the City is, on
average, 13.3 percent below market at the maximum. Based on the collected data, the
following observations can be made:
The surveyed position differentials ranged from 47.2 percent below market maximum
in the case of the Computer Technician I – Web Technician classification to 31.6
percent above market for the Deputy Marshal Lieutenant classification.
Of the 68 positions with market differentials, 61 classifications (89.7 percent) are
below market at the maximum. This increase from 72.1 percent being below at the
minimum signifies the City competes stronger at the minimum of its ranges than at
the maximum.
Eight surveyed positions were greater than 25.0 percent below market at the
maximum. These classifications are listed below with their market maximum
differentials:
o Computer Technician I – Web Technician, 47.2 percent below market
o Risk and Safety Specialist, 41.9 percent below market
o Water & Wastewater Foreman, 33.3 percent below market
o Human Resources Director, 31.9 percent below market
o Communications Manager (Police), 28.3 percent below market
o EMS Supervisor, 27.4 percent below market
o Paramedic, 26.9 percent below market
o Police Chief, 25.6 percent below market
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-8
Certification Pay
As a part of the salary survey, the City also sought information about certification pay
incentives. As such, Evergreen Solutions surveyed peer organizations as to which
classifications were offered pay incentives for obtaining additional certifications, such as
EMS certifications or advanced certifications for Police Officers. Of the responding peers, the
most common certification incentives were found in Police and Fire classifications. Many
peer organizations offered set dollar amounts for obtaining additional certifications relevant
to that classification. For example, in Police classifications peer organizations offered
anywhere from $504 to $2,520 per year for an Intermediate certification, anywhere from
$996 to $3,600 for an Advanced certification, and anywhere from $1,500 to $6,312 for a
Master’s certification. Similarly, for Fire classifications peer organizations offered anywhere
from $300 to $1,260 per year for an Intermediate certification, anywhere from $600 to
$1,800 per year for an Advanced certification, and anywhere from $900 to $3,156 per year
for a Master’s certification. By way of comparison, for Police classifications the City offers
$390 per year for an Intermediate certification, $650 per year for an Advanced certification,
and $780 per year for a Master’s certification. Likewise, the City offers the same dollar
amounts for the same certifications for Fire Marshal positions.
The next most common response for certification pay from responding peers was found in
Water Operations. For example, peer organizations offered anywhere from $600 to $624
per year for a Water Class 1 Collection certification, $1,200 per year for a Water Class 2
Collection certification and anywhere from $1,800 to $2,160 for a Water Class 3
certification. By way of comparison, the City offers the following certification pay incentives
in Water Operations (Water Operator 1-3 certifications, Wastewater Treatment 1-3
certifications, and Groundwater 1-3 certifications): $300 per year for a class 1 certification,
$600 for a class 2 certification and $900 for a class 3 certification.
Aside from Police, Fire and Water Operations, the most common classifications to which
certification incentives were offered were: Building Inspectors and Fleet Mechanics.
Additionally, some peer organizations offered pay certification incentives to classifications
found within Parks and Recreation, Animal Control, Administrative positions, and manual
labor positions. By way of comparison, aside from Police, Fire and Water Operations (which
is part of the Public Works department), the City offers certification pay incentives to
classifications in the following departments: EMS, Animal Services, Court Services, Finance,
Library, Parks and Recreation and Public Works.
Salary Survey Market Summary
It should again be noted that the standing of a classification’s pay range compared to the
market is not a definitive assessment of an individual employee’s salary being equally above
or below market. A salary range does, however, speak to the City’s ability to recruit and
retain talent over time. If a range minimum is significantly lower than the market would offer,
the City could find itself losing out to their market peers when they seek to fill a position. It is
equally true that range maximums lower than the market maximums may serve as a
disincentive for tenured employees to remain at the City. From the analysis of the data
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-9
gathered in the external labor market assessment, the following major conclusions can be
reached:
The City was approximately 6.4 percent below market at the minimum.
The City was approximately 10.1 percent below market at the midpoint.
The City was approximately 13.3 percent below market at the maximum.
This analysis provided a comparison of the City’s current compensation structure, or pay
plans and the market peer data. Some classifications had ranges that were ahead of the
market while some were well behind. Each classification was examined utilizing a balance of
market survey results (external equity) and point factor analysis (internal equity) to develop
the pay plan recommendations provided in Chapter 5.
4.2 BENEFITS SURVEY RESULTS
In addition to the salary survey, Evergreen Solutions conducted a benefits survey for the City.
Much like the salary analysis, the below benefits analysis represents a snapshot in time of
what is offered by peer organizations, and provides the City with an understanding of the
total compensation (salary and benefits) offered by its peers. While comparison data is
provided in the following sections, a line-by-line comparison of benefits offerings is not
recommended since different organizations often have different philosophies regarding the
importance of specific benefits. Furthermore, benefits are usually negotiated and acquired
through third parties, which often makes individual comparisons even more difficult.
Evergreen Solutions sought to receive benefits data from the same peers identified for the
salary survey. Exhibit 4C provides the 10 market peers from which benefits data were
actually received or collected.
EXHIBIT 4C
BENEFITS RESPONDENTS
Peer Data Collected
City of Boerne
City of Cedar Park
City of Conroe
City of Round Rock
City of Seguin
Washington County
New Braunfels Utilities
City of San Marcos
Travis County
City of Pflugerville
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-10
General Benefits
Exhibit 4D shows the count and percentage breakdown of the peers and the City’s full- and
part-time employees. On average, the respondents had more full-time and part-time
employees than the City. The number of full-time and part-time employees can influence the
benefits offered by an organization and thus are provided below. Additionally, Exhibit 4E
provides benefits as a percentage of total compensation. Benefits as a percentage of total
compensation is a common broad indicator that organizations use to assess how generous
the discretionary benefits are at individual organizations. Total compensation refers to the
compensation package (salary and benefits) an employee receives from their organization.
Therefore, benefits as a percentage of total compensation is calculated by dividing benefits
expressed as a dollar amount by the amount of total compensation (salary plus benefits).
The market average for benefits as a percentage of total compensation is approximately
29.1 percent based on the information provided, while for the City, this percentage is 23.0
percent. It is not uncommon for this number to vary depending on the compensation
philosophy adopted by an organization and the relative cost of health benefits. In the review
of the percentages below, it appears that the City, although slightly behind the peer average,
is generally comparable with its discretionary benefits as a percentage of total
compensation.
EXHIBIT 4D
PERCENT OF FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Organization Demographics Peer Average City of Schertz
Full Time Employees 397.9 319
Part Time Employees 71.9 48
EXHIBIT 4E
BENEFITS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPENSATION
Total Compensation Peer Average City of Schertz
Benefits as a percentage of total
compensation 29.1%23%
Current Health Plans
Exhibit 4F shows the number of health plans offered by the peers and the City, as well as the
percentage of peers offering each type of health plan. The average number of health plans
offered (any combination of HMO (Health Maintenance Organization), HSA (Health Savings
Account), PPO (Preferred Provider Organization), or other) is 1.6 based on the market data.
The City offers two health plans, a PPO plan and a combination PPO/HSA plan; the latter of
which is a HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan), whereby the difference in deductibles is
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-11
rolled over into a Health Savings Account for employees on that plan. Of the peers who
responded, 80.0 percent offer a PPO plan, 10.0 percent offer a HSA, 0.0 percent offer
HMOs, and 30.0 percent offer some other type of health plan, such as an EPO (Exclusive
Provider Organization) or CEPO (Comprehensive EPO).
EXHIBIT 4F
NUMBER & TYPE OF HEALTH PLANS OFFERED
Number of Plans Peer Average City of Schertz
Number of health plans offered 1.6 2
Type of Health Plans
Peer
Percentage Yes City of Schertz
HMO Health Plan offered?0.0%No
PPO Health Plan offered?81.8%Yes
Health Savings Account offered?10.0%Yes (PPO/HSA)
Other type of Health Plan offered?30.0%No
Exhibit 4G displays the average percentages of the premium paid by the employer for PPO
and HSA plans. The peer average percentage paid for the Base plan for individual
employee’s premium is 92.5 percent, 77.4 percent for employee plus child, 75.4 percent for
employee plus spouse, and 56.8 percent for family coverage. The City pays 100.0 percent
for employee only, 50.3 percent for employee plus child, 45.8 percent for employee plus
spouse, and 35.2 percent for family coverage. While the City pays for 100.0 percent of
employee only coverage, City employees pay more, on average, than their peers for health
coverage for employee plus child, employee plus spouse and employee plus family
coverage. The City’s PPO plan has slightly lower deductible dollar amounts, on average, than
its peers, but has higher deductible dollar amounts, on average, than the peer organizations
which offer HSA plans.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-12 Page 4-12
EXHIBIT 4G
CURRENT EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES
Health Plan Premiums and Deductibles Peer Peer City of Schertz City of Schertz
PPO Average HSA Average PPO PPO/HSA
Percentage paid by employer for employee-
only coverage 92.5%100.0%100%100%
Dollar amount paid monthly by employer for
employee-only coverage $574.02 $642.33 $475.97 $379.17
Percentage paid by employer for employee
plus one child 77.4%85.8%50.3%50.3%
Dollar amount paid monthly by employer for
employee plus child $551.83 N/A $475.97 $379.17
Percentage paid by employer for employee
plus spouse 75.4%N/A 45.8%45.8%
Dollar amount paid monthly by employer for
employee plus spouse $550.24 N/A $475.97 $379.17
Percentage paid by employer for employee
plus family 56.8%N/A 35.2%35.2%
Dollar amount paid monthly by employer for
employee plus family $739.09 N/A $475.97 $379.17
Deductible - Employee Only $1,075.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00
Deductible - Employee Plus Child $2,472.92 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
Deductible - Employee Plus Spouse $2,611.90 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
Deductible - Employee Plus Family $2,672.92 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-13
Other Benefits Offerings
Exhibit 4H displays the percentages of peers who offer additional benefits, such as dental
and vision insurance and short and long-term disability coverage. As Exhibit 4H illustrates,
the City offers all of the additional benefits, while varying percentages of peers offer those
same benefits, with the exception of dental insurance which is offered by all responding
peers.
EXHIBIT 4H
OTHER BENEFITS OFFERINGS
Other Benefits Offerings Peer
Percentage Yes City of Schertz
Dental Insurance offered?100.0%Yes
Vision Plan offered?90.9%Yes
Short-Term Disability offered?63.6%Yes
Long-Term Disability offered?81.8%Yes
Exhibit 4I displays the percentages paid and monthly costs to the employer and employee
for individual dental and vision coverage, as well as the monthly cost to the employer and
employee for dental and vision coverage for families. The City has lower costs and higher
percentage coverage by the employer than the peers for dental insurance with individual
coverage. On the other hand, the City covers vision insurance for individual employees, but
the cost to the employer (for individual and family coverage) and the monthly cost for family
vision coverage is higher at the City than its peers.
EXHIBIT 4I
DENTAL AND VISION COVERAGE
Percentage Paid
by Employer
Monthly Cost to
Employer for
Individual
Monthly Cost to
Employee for
Individual
Monthly Cost to
Employer for
Family
Monthly Cost to
Employee for
Family
Peer Average 85.7%$23.28 $8.95 N/A $64.64
City of Schertz 100.0%$12.09 $0.00 $12.09 $34.95
Peer Average 40.0%$2.11 $3.13 $6.87 $16.99
City of Schertz 100%$6.89 $0.00 $6.89 $18.45
Dental Insurance
Dental and Vision Plans
Vision Plan
Exhibit 4J displays the percentage of responding peers who offer long-term and short-term
disability insurance plans and displays whether the City offers these types of benefits. The
City offers both short-term and long-term disability plans, with the long-term plan being paid
by the City. No responding peer offered employer-paid short-term disability insurance and
only one peer offered employer paid long-term disability insurance. However, 60.0 percent
of responding peers offered employee-paid short-term disability insurance, with one peer
responding that the monthly employee cost for individual coverage was $24.96, while the
remaining responding peers stated that the cost was dependent on the employee’s salary
and coverage options. Similarly, while the average peer percentage of salary received was
54.3 percent of an employee’s salary, 40.0 percent of the responding peers stated that the
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-14
percentage of salary received varied depending on coverage options. The City indicated that
the percentage of salary received depends on varying circumstances
The City offers employer paid long-term disability coverage with a cost of 0.31 percent of the
employee’s salary, while only one peer offers employee paid long-term disability coverage;
however, 80.0 percent of peers offer long-term disability coverage, with the cost to
employees varying depending on the employee’s salary and coverage options. The long-term
disability insurance covers 60.0 percent of an employee’s salary for both the responding
peer organizations and the City; however, 14.3 percent of the responding peers stated that
the percentage of salary received depended on the employee’s salary and the coverage
options.
EXHIBIT 4J
DISABILITY INSURANCE
Percentage Paid
by Employer
Monthly Cost to
Employer for
Individual
Monthly Cost to
Employee for
Individual
Percentage of
Salary Received
Peer Average 60.0%$0.00 $24.96 54.3%
City of Schertz N/A N/A N/A N/A
Peer Average 80.0%$19.75 Varies 60.0%
City of Schertz Yes 31% of Salary N/A 60.0%
Short-Term Disability
Long-Term Disability
Exhibit 4K summarizes the Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) offering and Tuition
Reimbursement offering. EAP is provided by 90.0 percent of responding peers and is also
available to employees of the City. On average, 5.7 annual visits are offered by peers, while
the City offers three annual visits with $100 per day for hospital stays. Furthermore, 70.0
percent of responding peers offered tuition reimbursement, with the average annual peer
limit being $2,733.33. A number of peers also had limitations on their tuition
reimbursement program, such as the number of hours obtainable per semester or having a
retention policy tied to tuition reimbursement, whereby an employee may have to repay part
of the tuition if the retention policy is not met. The City also offers tuition reimbursement and
has an annual limit of $1,000 per employee for each fiscal year.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-15
EXHIBIT 4K
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT BENEFITS
EAP/Tuition
Reimbursement
Peer
Percentage Yes Peer Average City of Schertz
Is an EAP offered?90.0%Yes
Number of Annual EAP Visits
Provided 5.7 3
Is Tuition Reimbursement
offered?
70.0%Yes
Tuition Reimbursement Limit $2,733.33 $1000 per FY
Life Insurance
Exhibit 4L summarizes the life insurance offerings of responding peers and the City.
Employer-paid life insurance is offered by 100.0 percent of the peers and the City. The
respondents’ average monthly cost per individual ($4.99) was slightly higher than the City’s
at $3.50 per individual coverage. The peers’ death benefit for employee-paid life insurance
varies based on employee salaries and coverage options. Additionally, accidental death
insurance was provided by all responding peers and the City.
EXHIBIT 4L
LIFE INSURANCE
Peer
Percentage Yes Peer Average City of Schertz
Is employer-paid life insurance offered?100.0%Yes
Cost (monthly) to employer for individual
coverage $4.99 $3.50
Cost (monthly) to employer for
dependent coverage $0.00 $0.00
Dollar amount of death benefit $29,000.00 $25,000.00
Is accidental death insurance provided?100.0%Yes
Employee Leave and Holidays
Exhibit 4M provides the average accrual rates for sick, annual/vacation, and personal leave
for respondents and the City. The average minimum monthly accrual rate for sick leave is
8.0 hours for peers, which is equal to the City’s rate of 8.0 hours. The average maximum
monthly accrual rate for the peers for sick leave is 8.5 hours and 10.0 hours for the City.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-16
The City also offers higher minimum rates of annual leave than its peers, 8.0 to 7.3 per
month and maximum, 16.0 to 12.9 hours. The City also allows for higher amounts of leave
to be rolled over.
EXHIBIT 4M
LEAVE TIME ACCRUAL
Organization Offered?Minimum Accrual
Rate (Monthly)
Maximum
Accrual Rate
(Monthly)
Years to
Achieve
Maximum
Accrual Rate
Maximum
Allowed to Roll
Over to
Following Year
Peer Percentage
Yes/Average 55.6%5.8 Hours 9.5 Hours 10.0 N/A
City of Schertz N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Peer Percentage
Yes/Average 88.9%8 Hours 8.5 Hours 2.0 480 Hours
City of Schertz Yes 8.0 10.0 N/A 960 Hours
Peer Percentage
Yes/Average 100.0%7.3 Hours 12.9 Hours 14.3 320 Hours
City of Schertz Yes 8.0 16.0 10.0 N/A
Annual/Vacation Leave
Personal Leave
Sick Leave
Exhibit 4N provides the sick leave policies of the City and that of its peers. The City does not
allow for unused sick leave to be paid out and only 25% of the peers offer this benefit.
EXHIBIT 4N
SICK LEAVE POLICIES
Peer
Percentage
Yes
Peer Average City of Schertz
Is unused sick leave paid out
upon voluntary separation?
25.0%No
Max hours of sick leave paid
out upon voluntary
separation
720.0 N/A
Is unused sick leave paid out
upon involuntary separation?
25.0%No
Max hours of sick leave paid
out upon involuntary
separation
720.0 N/A
Can unused sick leave count
towards retirement?0.0%No
Exhibit 4O provides the vacation leave policies of the City and that of its peers. The City
offers this benefits for both voluntary and involuntary separation as do most peers.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-17
EXHIBIT 4O
VACATION LEAVE POLICIES
Peer
Percentage
Yes
Peer Average City of Schertz
Is unused annual/vacation leave
paid out upon voluntary
separation?
100.0%N/A
Max hours of annual/vacation
leave paid out upon voluntary
separation
216.0 Unlimited
Is unused annual/vacation leave
paid out upon involuntary
separation?
75.0%No
Max hours of annual/vacation
leave paid out upon involuntary
separation
304.0 N/A
The percentages of peers offering various holidays and the holidays at the City are shown in
Exhibit 4P. All peers recognize New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas
Day. The average number of holidays observed by peers was 12.8, while the City offers a
minimum of 11 holidays per year, including Columbus Day. The City offers several additional
holidays in certain years, depending on what day of the week Christmas Day, New Year’s
Day, and July 4th fall. When considering these additional holidays allowances, employees at
the City (across a three to four years average) receive a similar total number of holidays, if
not slightly more than the average of the market peers. The holiday pay rate for 75.0
percent of the peers was straight time, which the City offers to employees who do not work
the holiday, while 25.0 percent of the peers offered a double pay rate for holidays, which the
City pays for those who do work on holidays.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-18
EXHIBIT 4P
RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS
Holiday Peer
Percentage Yes City of Schertz
New Year's Day 100.0% Yes
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 100.0% Yes
President's Day/Washington's
Birthday 70.0% Yes
Memorial Day 100.0% Yes
Independence Day 100.0% Yes
Labor Day 100.0% Yes
Veteran's Day 60.0% Yes
Thanksgiving Day 100.0% Yes
Day After Thanksgiving 100.0% Yes
Christmas Eve 90.0% No
Christmas Day 100.0% Yes
Day After Christmas 50.0% No
New Year's Eve 0.0% No
Employee's Birthday 10.0% No
Good Friday 50.0% No
Personal Day 50.0% No
Columbus Day 10.0% Yes
EXHIBIT 4P
RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS (CONTINUED)
Holiday Policies Peer
Percentage Yes Peer Average City of Schertz
Number of holidays observed 12.8 11-14
Holiday Pay Rate - Straight 75.0%Yes
Holiday Pay Rate - Double 25.0%No
Retirees
Exhibit 4Q displays information about the retirement plans that are offered. All peers as well
as the City participate in the state’s TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) plan. Of the
peer respondents, 100 percent of peers participate in a retirement system other than TMRS
and all of these were either a 401(k), 401(a), 403(b), or 457.
Chapter 4 – Market Summary City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-19
EXHIBIT 4Q
RETIREMENT PARTICIPATION
State/Non-State Retirement Options Peer
Percentage Yes City of Schertz
Does the organization participate in a
State Retirement System?100.0%Yes
Is a retirement option other than a state
plan offered?100.0%Yes
Is D.R.O.P. offered?0.0%No
Is a 401k, 401a, 403(b), or 457 offered?100.0%Yes
Is a type of plan other than a 401k, 401a,
403(b) or 457 offered?0.0%No
Does the employer contribute to any of
these non-state retirement options?11.1%No
Does the organization's retirement plan
offer a disability provision?77.8%Yes
Exhibit 4R displays detailed information about the retirement plans that are offered. The
City has a shorter vesting period and offers a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) to its retirees
while none of the other peers responded that they offer a COLA.
EXHIBIT 4R
RETIREMENT DETAILS
Retirement Peer Average City of Schertz
Definition of Normal Retirement 88.9% "20 years or 5 years at age 60"20 years or 5 years at age 60
Years to Fully Vest 5.78 5
COLA Offered to Retiree Pensions N/A Yes
Employee's % Contribution Required 7.0%7.0%
Employer's % Contribution Matched 2-1 2-1
Benefits Survey Summary
The peer benefits data summarized in this chapter indicate that the City provides similar
benefits in a number of areas; however, the primary area of concern is the percent the City
contributes towards dependent premiums. Other areas that the City offered less than its
peer average included the number of EAP visits, its tuition reimbursement policy, and the
number of holidays offered.
Market Survey Conclusion
Information gained from this market survey was used in conjunction with the internal equity
analysis and factors such as fiscal constraints to develop a recommended compensation
plan that places the City in a strong position to stay competitive in today’s market.
Discussion of the recommended changes to the City’s pay plan can be found in Chapter 5 of
this report.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-1
\\\\\\\\\\\
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a definitive assessment of the City’s compensation
and classification structures, as well as its overall benefits package and detail the
recommendations for the City moving forward. The recommendations within this chapter
were developed based on the findings in the preceding chapters which summarized analysis
of the current compensation and classification structures the City utilizes, as well as the
market study.
The sections included within this chapter are as follows:
5.1 Compensation Analysis and Recommendations.
5.2 Classification Analysis and Recommendations.
5.3 Benefits Analysis and Recommendations.
5.4 Recommendations on Administration of the Compensation Plan.
5.5 Summary.
5.1 COMPENSATION ANALYSIS
As discussed in Chapter 3, the City currently uses a step plan that consists of 56 unique pay
grades, though only 31 are currently in use, each of which is comprised of 15 salary steps.
The City possesses an equitably designed step plan that has several unused pay grades
which allow it considerable room for organization growth and change without needing to
change the plan too drastically.
The market survey revealed that the salary ranges offered by the City currently lag the
market considerably. The lack of competitive salary ranges can lead to difficulty recruiting
new employees as well as retention of quality employees.
In addition to the market survey, Evergreen provided the employees of the City with the Job
Assessment Tool (JAT) survey, the results of which were used to produce a hierarchy of the
classifications in the City. This rank order of job titles is used in conjunction with the results
of the salary survey in order to determine the appropriate pay grade for each classification.
FINDING: While the City’s pay plan has a well-designed structure and allows for future
growth and change, the salary ranges offered by the City are lagging the market.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Evergreen recommends the City adopt an amended version of its
current pay plan.
Evergreen found that the City’s pay plan possessed a large number of salary grades that
offer flexibility to the City in order to maintain its structure and increase its market
competitiveness by re-assigning salary grades for its classifications; however, the market
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Chapter 5 – Recommendations City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-2
survey indicated that the City’s salary ranges are narrower than those offered by market
peers. For that reason, Evergreen expanded the City’s pay plan to include 20 steps. By
adopting an amended pay plan that possesses wider range spreads, the City has a better
tool for compensating long term, high performing employees. The adjusted pay plan can be
found in Appendix I. Additionally, Evergreen recommends a new set of pay grade
assignments for the City’s positions that seeks to maximize both the City’s external
competitiveness with regards to its salary offerings, but also with consideration for the
internal relationships between positions in the City.
Due to market differentials varying greatly amongst different jobs, an approach was adopted
that would be targeted at bringing specific City salary ranges that lagged the market in line
with the 45th percentile. The 45th percentile of the market was chosen due to the City’s
limited financial resources and represents a market position that is an achievable starting
point for increasing its competitive position. In order to achieve this, Evergreen grouped
every position in the organization into one of several job families, so that a relative market
position could be determined for each family. Based on the market position of the family, an
overall adjustment took place first to all classifications within the family, and a secondary
adjustment to the grade assignments also occurred in order to ensure the preservation of
appropriate grade separation between internal City classifications. The final pay grade
assignment recommendations can be found in Appendix II.
As a result of changing of some classifications grades the City’s market position would shift
upward. Exhibit 5A summarizes the results of the City’s market positions.
EXHIBIT 5A
MARKET DIFFERENTIAL
In order to adopt the proposed pay plan, employees will require salary adjustments to
ensure they fall properly on the proposed steps. In order to preserve the merit increases that
employees have received in recent years, Evergreen recommends an implementation
method that consists of employees being transferred into the new pay plan be remaining on
their current step in their proposed grade.
In considering the large adjustment to some positions, the City’s compensation philosophy,
and the limited financial resources of any organization, Evergreen recommends a market
based implementation schedule that is phased over four years, and places emphasis on
adjusting employees who are further behind market first. The cost details of both an
immediate implementation and a phased approach are located in Exhibit 5B. The proposed
implementation would be estimated at a cost of $1,705,369.52 and affect 282 of the City’s
total 354 employees.
Min Mid Max
-6.4%-10.1%-13.3%32%
2.8%4.9%6.1%46%
Current
Proposed
Market Differential at 45th Percentile City's
Range Spread
Chapter 5 – Recommendations City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-3
EXHIBIT 5B
MARKET BASED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
While the market based implementation schedule addresses the City’s lagging salary ranges
and aligns well with the City’s stated implementation goals in its compensation philosophy, it
does possess a few outstanding gaps. In the course of performing employee outreach,
Evergreen found the recruitment and retention of employees to be a leading concern and in
particular a handful of classifications were identified as having particular turnover issues. As
an alternative option for the City, Evergreen has designed a second phased implementation
schedule that places heavy emphasis on granting market adjustments to difficult to recruit
and retain positions first, and a secondary emphasis is placed on those employee groups
that are further behind market. The cost details of this schedule are listed in Exhibit 5C.
EXHIBIT 5C
TURNOVER BASED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
It is important to note that the sole difference between these two phased implementation
schedules is the assignment of grade increases in each of the years, based on the factor
being emphasized. If the City were to enact a onetime adjustment where all employees were
brought to their proposed adjusted salaries immediately, both the concerns of market
lagging wages and immediate recruitment difficulties could be addressed collectively.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
$1,705,398.62 ----
-$643,923.73 $384,268.95 $382,012.41 $295,193.53
Bring to
Current Step
One time Total
Implementation
Option Four Years
Costs
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
$1,705,398.62 ----
-$647,957.43 $434,473.63 $327,774.03 $295,193.53
Bring to
Current Step
One time Total
Implementation
Option Four Years
Costs
Chapter 5 – Recommendations City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-4
Regardless of which schedule the City chooses to implement, Evergreen recommends the
City maintain its current method of progressing employees through their steps on an annual
merit raises basis when financial resources are available to do so.
5.2 CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS
In addition to developing a compensation plan for the City, Evergreen reviewed the current
classification structure.
FINDING: Evergreen found that the City’s structure was generally well-organized and
employees were appropriately assigned to classifications; however, there were some
classifications that required updated titles based on the current work performed. In addition,
some employees were performing work that differed from their fellow incumbents and
required individual reclassification.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Evergreen recommends the City adopts the listed classification
changes in Exhibit 5D.
EXHIBIT 5D
PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
5.3 BENEFITS ANALYSIS
As discussed in Chapter 4, the City offers a comprehensive benefits package that spans
across several areas and is generally comparable to the average of its peers. The area
where the City possesses its biggest gap is in its health care coverage, specifically its
contribution towards dependent premiums, including employee plus child, employee plus
spouse, and employee plus family.
Current Classification
Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant/Help Desk Coordinator Select Employee(s)
Assistant Chief Inspector Senior Combination Inspector
Assistant Inspector Combination Inspector
Chief Inspector Building Official
Code Enforcement Officer Environmental Law Enforcement Officer Select Employee(s)
Computer Tech I-Web Tech Web Developer
Library Clerk II Library Assistant Select Employee(s)
Library Technical Aide Library Assistant
Public Safety System Tech I Public Safety Systems Administrator
Wastewater Supervisor Wastewater Superintendent
Sr. Accts Payable Specialist Accounts Payable Coordinator
Sr. Systems Engineer Senior Systems Administrator
Streets & Fleet Superintendent Public Works Manager
*Recommended titles are new and do not currently exist in the City
Recommended Classification*
Chapter 5 – Recommendations City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-5
FINDING: The City possesses a comprehensive benefits package; however, the City does not
contribute as much to the dependent health premiums as its peers, resulting in higher out-
of-pocket costs to employees.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Evergreen recommends that the City explore the feasibility of
increasing its contribution rates to dependent premiums so that its percentages of cost
sharing are more similar to its peer cities.
Employees at the City expressed the rising costs of dependent health premiums as one of
their leading concerns for the City’s benefits package. Given these concerns are aligned with
the information collected in the benefits survey, addressing this concern would go a long
way in the City’s goal to achieve a competitive and desirable total compensation package.
5.4 COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
FINDING: To maintain the effectiveness of the compensation structure over time, the City
must devote strong administrative support and continued attention to the market in order to
preserve internal and external equity.
The assessment and recommendations of this study are based on the current conditions of
the City’s compensation system. Additionally, compensation plans have a limited shelf life
before they fall out of touch with changes happening both in the market and within the
organization. As such, continuous maintenance and monitoring of the City’s compensation
plan is essential for keeping current with the market.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Conduct localized salary survey of market peers at regular intervals
throughout the year.
While the market for salaries can shift overtime regardless of location, the state of Texas
currently has a particularly dynamic labor market. Evergreen recommends that the City
conduct a number of smaller market surveys throughout the year by selecting a number of
benchmark classifications and surveying peers for their compensation rates for similar work
performed. When selecting positions to survey, the aim should be to represent the various
areas and levels of the organization, as well as selecting positions that may be experiencing
recruitment or retention issues. By conducting regular market surveys, the City will be able
to assess its approximate market position and make adjustments accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study
every three years.
While smaller market surveys and maintaining job descriptions allow for strong maintenance
of a compensation and classification system, it is necessary to perform a comprehensive
study that can capture all of the changes, both internal and external, that occur over time.
Chapter 5 – Recommendations City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-6
5.5 SUMMARY
While the City’s current compensation lags behind the market, the City’s management team
should be commended for their strong commitment to ensuring they are offering market
competitive salaries moving forward. With the recommendations detailed above, the City
has the tools to better compensate its quality employees and attract new talent more
competitively.
Appendix I Proposed Pay Plan City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range
Spread
Midpoint
Progression
5 $17,615.52 $21,639.00 $25,662.49 46%-
6 $18,326.88 $22,512.84 $26,698.80 46%4.0%
7 $19,067.36 $23,422.45 $27,777.54 46%4.1%
8 $19,836.96 $24,367.83 $28,898.70 46%4.0%
9 $20,637.76 $25,351.54 $30,065.32 46%4.0%
10 $21,471.84 $26,376.13 $31,280.42 46%4.0%
11 $22,341.28 $27,444.15 $32,547.03 46%4.0%
12 $23,244.00 $28,553.06 $33,862.12 46%4.0%
13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72 46%4.0%
14 $25,159.68 $30,906.29 $36,652.90 46%4.0%
15 $26,176.80 $32,155.73 $38,134.65 46%4.0%
16 $27,233.44 $33,453.71 $39,673.98 46%4.0%
17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94 46%4.0%
18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53 46%4.0%
19 $30,669.60 $37,674.71 $44,679.82 46%4.0%
20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80 46%4.0%
21 $33,196.80 $40,779.13 $48,361.47 46%4.0%
22 $34,536.32 $42,424.61 $50,312.90 46%4.0%
23 $35,934.08 $44,141.62 $52,349.17 46%4.0%
24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23 46%4.0%
25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13 46%4.0%
26 $40,468.48 $49,711.71 $58,954.93 46%4.0%
27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62 46%4.0%
28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32 46%4.0%
29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96 46%4.0%
30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69 46%4.0%
31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45 46%4.0%
32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35 46%4.0%
33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42 46%4.0%
34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71 46%4.0%
35 $57,796.96 $70,998.11 $84,199.26 46%4.0%
1/2
Appendix I Proposed Pay Plan City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
36 $60,130.72 $73,864.91 $87,599.10 46%4.0%
37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37 46%4.0%
38 $65,091.52 $79,958.79 $94,826.05 46%4.0%
39 $67,718.56 $83,185.86 $98,653.15 46%4.0%
40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85 46%4.0%
41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12 46%4.0%
42 $76,263.20 $93,682.14 $111,101.08 46%4.0%
43 $79,345.76 $97,468.77 $115,591.79 46%4.0%
44 $82,548.96 $101,403.60 $120,258.25 46%4.0%
45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64 46%4.0%
46 $89,352.64 $109,761.28 $130,169.92 46%4.0%
47 $92,965.60 $114,199.46 $135,433.32 46%4.0%
48 $96,720.00 $118,811.39 $140,902.78 46%4.0%
49 $100,626.24 $123,609.84 $146,593.43 46%4.0%
50 $104,690.56 $128,602.47 $152,514.38 46%4.0%
51 $108,921.28 $133,799.51 $158,677.74 46%4.0%
52 $113,258.08 $139,126.86 $164,995.64 46%4.0%
53 $117,898.56 $144,827.25 $171,755.94 46%4.1%
54 $122,663.84 $150,680.95 $178,698.05 46%4.0%
2/2
Appendix II Position Grade Assignments City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Class Grade Min Mid Max
Crossing Guard 5 $17,615.52 $21,639.00 $25,662.49
P/T Library Page 6 $18,326.88 $22,512.84 $26,698.80
P/T Kennel Technician 8 $19,836.96 $24,367.83 $28,898.70
Fleet Apprentice 12 $23,244.00 $28,553.06 $33,862.12
Animal Shelter Technician 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
P/T Childrens Programming Clk 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
P/T Circulation Clerk 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
P/T Processing Clerk 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
P/T Shelving Clerk 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
Temp P/T Library Clerk 15-20 Hrs 13 $24,182.08 $29,705.40 $35,228.72
Billing Clerk 14 $25,159.68 $30,906.29 $36,652.90
Park Worker I 14 $25,159.68 $30,906.29 $36,652.90
Records Clerk 14 $25,159.68 $30,906.29 $36,652.90
Drainage Worker I 15 $26,176.80 $32,155.73 $38,134.65
Street Worker I 15 $26,176.80 $32,155.73 $38,134.65
General Services Tech I 16 $27,233.44 $33,453.71 $39,673.98
P/T General Services Tech I 16 $27,233.44 $33,453.71 $39,673.98
Customer Relations/311 Rep 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Deputy Court Clerk 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Library Clerk II 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
P/W Dispatcher-Clerk 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Permit Technician 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Records Mngmnt Coordinator I 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Serviceman I 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Utility Billing Clerk I 17 $28,333.76 $34,805.35 $41,276.94
Animal Services Officer 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Building Maintenance Worker I 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Drainage Worker II 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Library Assistant 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Street Sweeper Operator 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Street Worker II 18 $29,477.76 $36,210.65 $42,943.53
Meter Technician I 19 $30,669.60 $37,674.71 $44,679.82
Utility Billing Clerk II 19 $30,669.60 $37,674.71 $44,679.82
Proposed
1/5
Appendix II Position Grade Assignments City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Administrative Assistant 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
Fleet Mechanic I 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
General Services Administrative Assistant 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
HR Administrative Assistant 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
Serviceman II 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
Administrative Assistant/Help Desk Coordinator 20 $31,909.28 $39,197.54 $46,485.80
Client Services Technician I 21 $33,196.80 $40,779.13 $48,361.47
Events Specialist 21 $33,196.80 $40,779.13 $48,361.47
Meter Technician II 21 $33,196.80 $40,779.13 $48,361.47
Code Enforcement Officer 22 $34,536.32 $42,424.61 $50,312.90
Communications Officer 22 $34,536.32 $42,424.61 $50,312.90
Parks Foreman 22 $34,536.32 $42,424.61 $50,312.90
Environmental Law Enforcement Officer 22 $34,536.32 $42,424.61 $50,312.90
Billing Specialist 23 $35,934.08 $44,141.62 $52,349.17
Senior Purchasing Specialist 23 $35,934.08 $44,141.62 $52,349.17
Civilian Evidence Technician 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
ED Specialist 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
EMS Sr. Admin Assistant 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Senior Administrative Assistant 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Sr Deputy Court Clerk 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Accounts Payable Coordinator 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Sr. Payroll Specialist 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Serviceman III 24 $37,385.92 $45,925.07 $54,464.23
Combination Inspector 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Asst Business Office Manager 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Building Maintenance Foreman 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Drainage Foreman 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Human Resources Generalist 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Risk & Safety Specialist 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Street Foreman 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Accountant I 25 $38,896.00 $47,780.06 $56,664.13
Deputy Marshal 26 $40,468.48 $49,711.71 $58,954.93
P/A Account Manager 26 $40,468.48 $49,711.71 $58,954.93
Public Safety Systems Administrator 26 $40,468.48 $49,711.71 $58,954.93
Public Works Inspector 26 $40,468.48 $49,711.71 $58,954.93
2/5
Appendix II Position Grade Assignments City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Civic & Community Centers Coordinator 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Communications Shift Supervisor 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Web Developer 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Fleet Mechanic III 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Planner I 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Water & Sewer Foreman 27 $42,101.28 $51,717.45 $61,333.62
Deputy City Secretary 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Executive Assistant 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Assistant to the Deputy City Manager 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Firefighter 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Firefighter/EMT-B 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
P/T Paramedic 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Paramedic 28 $43,804.80 $53,810.06 $63,815.32
Adult Services Librarian 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
Fleet Foreman 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
GIS Specialist 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
Records Office Manager 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
Youth Services Librarian 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
Virtual Services Librarian 29 $45,572.80 $55,981.88 $66,390.96
Deputy Marshal Corporal 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Office Manager 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
P/W Project Manager 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Patrol Officer 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Sr. Generalist 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Staff Accountant 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Crime Victim Liaison 30 $47,415.68 $58,245.69 $69,075.69
Senior Combination Inspector 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Events Manager 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Fleet Manager 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Publications Editor 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Sr. Computer Support Systems Engineer 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Senior Systems Administrator 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Stormwater Manager 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
Streets Supervisor 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
ED Analyst 31 $49,329.28 $60,596.36 $71,863.45
3/5
Appendix II Position Grade Assignments City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Animal Services Manager 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
Bus Office Manager 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
Environmental Health Manager 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
General Services Supervisor 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
Graduate Engineer 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
Senior Planner 32 $51,321.92 $63,044.13 $74,766.35
Building official 33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42
Fire Apparatus Operator 33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42
Fire Inspector 33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42
GIS Coordinator 33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42
W/W Superintendent 33 $53,395.68 $65,591.55 $77,787.42
CID Corporal 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Corporal 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Court Director 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Deputy Marshal Lieutenant 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Park Manager 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Patrol Corporal 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Senior Budget Analyst 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Special Projects Corporal 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
SRO Corporal 34 $55,552.64 $68,241.17 $80,929.71
Communications Manager - Police 35 $57,796.96 $70,998.11 $84,199.26
Engineer 35 $57,796.96 $70,998.11 $84,199.26
Public Works Manager 35 $57,796.96 $70,998.11 $84,199.26
Field Training Officer 36 $60,130.72 $73,864.91 $87,599.10
Lieutenant 36 $60,130.72 $73,864.91 $87,599.10
Purchasin & Asset Manager 36 $60,130.72 $73,864.91 $87,599.10
CID Sergeant 37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37
Assistant to City Manager 37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37
General Services Manager 37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37
Patrol Sergeant 37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37
4/5
Appendix II Position Grade Assignments City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
SRO Sergeant 37 $62,562.24 $76,851.81 $91,141.37
EMS Office Manager 38 $65,091.52 $79,958.79 $94,826.05
Deputy Fire Marshall 39 $67,718.56 $83,185.86 $98,653.15
Training & Safety Officer 39 $67,718.56 $83,185.86 $98,653.15
Assistant Director of Finance 40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85
Battalion Chief 40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85
City Secretary 40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85
EMS Supervisor 40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85
Public Affairs General Manager 40 $70,455.84 $86,548.35 $102,640.85
Assistant PW Director 41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12
CID Lieutenant 41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12
City Marshal 41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12
Library Director 41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12
Patrol Lieutenant 41 $73,301.28 $90,043.70 $106,786.12
EMS Clinical Manager 42 $76,263.20 $93,682.14 $111,101.08
Public Training Outreach Coordinator 42 $76,263.20 $93,682.14 $111,101.08
Director of Parks, Rec, & Comm Srvcs 43 $79,345.76 $97,468.77 $115,591.79
City Engineer 44 $82,548.96 $101,403.60 $120,258.25
Assistant Police Chief 45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64
EMS Assistant Director 45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64
Finance Director 45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64
IT Director 45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64
Assistant Fire Chief 45 $85,885.28 $105,501.96 $125,118.64
Dir of Development Services 46 $89,352.64 $109,761.28 $130,169.92
Human Resources Director 46 $89,352.64 $109,761.28 $130,169.92
Public Works Director 46 $89,352.64 $109,761.28 $130,169.92
SSLGC General Manager 46 $89,352.64 $109,761.28 $130,169.92
Police Chief 48 $96,720.00 $118,811.39 $140,902.78
EMS Director 49 $100,626.24 $123,609.84 $146,593.43
Fire Chief 49 $100,626.24 $123,609.84 $146,593.43
Chief of Staff 50 $104,690.56 $128,602.47 $152,514.38
Executive Director of Economic Development 50 $104,690.56 $128,602.47 $152,514.38
Deputy City Manager 52 $113,258.08 $139,126.86 $164,995.64
Executive Director Development 52 $113,258.08 $139,126.86 $164,995.64
Executive Director Services 52 $113,258.08 $139,126.86 $164,995.64
5/5
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1
\\\\\\\\\\\
RESOLUTION NO. 15-R-51
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCHERTZ, TEXAS ADOPTING PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY
STATEMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Schertz (the “City”) wishes to adopt
Philosophy and Policy Statements as it relates to the Classification and Compensation plan ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
be transparent and adopt the plan and statements.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS
THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the following be adopted regarding
the City’s Philosophy Statement:
• The City of Schertz will provide competitive and sustainable wages while
balancing other factors such as recruitment, retention, staffing levels,
benefits, training, and advancement.
• We will continue our emphasis on pay for performance, while being
mindful of our fiscal responsibility and need to demonstrate taxpayer value.
• We will strive to provide internally equitable salaries and to be
transparent with information related to the pay structure and related
processes with all employees.
• Employee growth and engagement are our primary drivers for retention
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the following be adopted regarding
the City’s Classification and Compensation Implementation Plan:
• The City will conduct a full classification and compensation study on regular
intervals, typically every five years.
• The City will hold annual performance evaluations and award merit pay increases
based on the results.
EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Appendix III – City’s Compensation
Philosophy
Appendix III - City’s Compensation Philosophy City of Schertz, TX: Compensation and Classification Study
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2
• The City will strive to create a balanced approach combining annual Merit
increases and COLA increases, when possible.
• The City will communicate to all employees how the pay processes are
implemented, what the City’s compensation goals are, when the effective dates of
future compensation are decided, and why compensatory related processes are put
into place.
Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizing the following be adopted regarding
the City’s Classification and Compensation First Steps:
• The City’s first implementation goal will be to adjust the compensation of
employees with lagging wages.
• The City’s second implementation goal will be to provide a balance between
compensation and strategic staffing levels.
• The City’s third implementation goal will be to provide an internally equitable
and externally competitive wage to all employees.
• The City’s fourth implementation goal will be to provide meaningful and
competitive benefits to all employees.
Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
Section 7. 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 8. 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 9. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final
passage, and it is so resolved.
This resolution was adopted on June 23, 2015.