The URL can be used to link to this page

08-22-2017 Agenda with backupMEETING AGENDA City Council REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 22, 2017 HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 Call to Order — Regular Session Opening Prayer and Pledtes of Allegiance to the Flags of the United States and State of Texas. (Councilmember Crawford) City Events and Announcements • Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. James /D. Wait /S. Gonzalez) • Announcements and recognitions by City Manager (J. Kessel) 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. 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 Actual 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. 08 -22- 2017 - Council Agenda Workshop • Discussion and possible action regarding fee waivers for Guadalupe County for the renovation of the Riedel's building. (B. James) • Discussion and possible action regarding our fee schedule, goals, and spirit of that schedule and what we are trying to accomplish. (Mayor /Council) • Discussion and possible action regarding public speech, including the use of social media, by appointed members of city boards, committees, commissions and members of other corporations or boards where the city council or the mayor may have appointment authority. (Item requested by Mayor Carpenter) 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 — Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 2017 and minutes of the Special Meeting of July 28, 2017. . (J..Kessel /B. Dennis) 2. Ordinance No. 17 -M -27 — Consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance setting the Fee Schedule of the City of Schertz for FY 2017/18. Final Reading (J. Kessel /J. Walters) Discussion Items 3. Public Hearing on Proposed Budget for FY 201.7 -18 — Conduct a public hearing regarding the adoption of the FY 2017 -18 Budget. (First required public hearing) (B. PH James /J. Walters) 4. Public Hearing on Proposed Tax Rate — Conduct a public hearing regarding the adoption of the FY 2017 -18 Tax Rate. (First required public hearing) (B James /J. I'H Walters) 5. Resolution No. 17 -R -65 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing an Agreement with the Developer of the Hallie's Cove Subdivision project for sewer pump and haul. (B. James) 6. Resolution No. 17 -R -66 - Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution regarding a request for a Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area grant for 817 Main Street. (B. James) 7. Resolution No. 17 -R -67 - Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School. District (SCUCISD) regarding hours of use of the Natatorium. (B. James) 08 -22 -2017 City Council Agenda Page - 2 - 8. Resolution No. 17 -R -68 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing approval of the Hazard Mitigation Plan with Bexar County. (D. Wait /K. Long) 9. Resolution No. 17 -R -69 - Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with Bexar County. (D. Wait/K. Long) 10. Ordinance No. 17 -D -28 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending Chapter 86, Article V, Section 86 -1.49 Parking Prohibited on the drainage inlet in Fairhaven Subdivision on Greenridge 20 feet in front of the emergency gate to the Scenic Hills Community Subdivision. First Reading (B. James /K. Woodlee /C. Palomo) 11. Resolution No. 17 -R -70 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing purchases up to $80,000 with Southern Computer Warehouse for the FY 2016 -17 fiscal year for software and hardware purchases. (B. James /M. Clauser) 12. Resolution No. 17 -R -71 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing two Interlocal Agreements between the City of Schertz and the Drug Enforcement Administration for two Task Force Officers. (D. Wait /M. Hansen) 13. Resolution No. 17 -R -73 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing a contract with J3 Company, LLC for the reconstruction of the Cibolo Creek Bridge at Lower Seguin Road. (D. Wait /D. Letbetter) 14. Ordinance No. 17 -T -29 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance authorizing an amendment to the FY 2016 -1.7 General. Fund to create and fund four additional Crossing Guard positions. First Reading (D. Wait /J. Walters /M. Hansen) Roll Call Vote Confirmation Requests and Announcements 15. Announcements by City Manager. 16. Placing Items on Future Agendas: Member of the City Council may place items on future agendas provided the chair is able to determine unanimous consent. If objection is made by one or more members of the City Council, the Mayor shall instruct the City Secretary to place on the agenda for the next regular session an item to discuss the merits of placing the item that was objected to on a future agenda for full consideration. 17. 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 Adjournment 08 -22 -2017 City Council Agenda Page - 3 - CERTIFICATION I, DONNA SCHMOEKEL, DEPUTY 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 18`h DAY OF AUGUST 2017 . AT 3:00 PM. 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. DOVI,VUP Sr hVv 0626 Donna Schmoekel, Deputy City Secretar 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 2017. 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 Councilmember Davis— Place 1 Audit Committee Schertz Housing Authority Board Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Interview Committee for Boards and Investment Advisory Committee Commissions Main Street Committee Main Street Committee - Chair TIRZ II Board Councilmember Gutierrez — Place 2 Councilmember Larson — Place 3 Main Street Committee — Vice Chair Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards — Place 4 Councilmember Thompson — Place 5 Audit Committee Audit Committee Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee Investment Advisory Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation Main Street Committee Councilmember Kiser — Place 6 Councilmember Crawford — Place 7 Schertz Animal Services Advisory Commission Schertz - Seguin Local. Government Corporation. Interview Committee for Boards and 08 -22 -2017 City Council Agenda Page - 4 - Commisslons CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: Department: August 22, 2017 Mayor /Council Workshop Subject: Discussion and possible action regarding public speech, including the use of social media, by appointed members of city boards, committees, commissions and members of other corporations or boards where the city council or the mayor may have appointment authority. BACKGROUND At the city council meeting of August 8, 2017, . Council held a workshop discussion in regard to public speech, including the use of social media by appointed members of city boards, committees, or commissions and members of other corporations or boards where the council or the mayor may have appointment authority. Direction was given to staff to consult with the city attorney to consider organizing a general guideline and training plan for the purpose of providing new and/or tenured members of city affiliated boards /commissions /committees a reference tool. Mayor Carpenter requested this item be placed on the agenda for more discussion. FISCAL IMPACT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 17 -R -74 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 17 -R -74 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Subject: City Secretary Minutes Agenda No. 1 The City Council held a Special Meeting of July 28, 2017 . and a Regular Meeting on August 8, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 28, 2017 and the Regular meeting of August 8, 2017. ATTACHMENTS Special Meeting of July 28, 2017 minutes. Regular Meeting of August 8, 2017 minutes. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING August 8, 2017 A Regular Meeting was held by the Schertz City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, on August 8, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Hal Baldwin Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1.400 Schertz Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas. The following members present to -wit: Mayor Michael Carpenter Councilmember Mark Davis Councilmember Scott Larson Councilmember Angelina Kiser Staff Present: Executive Director Brian James Assistant to City Manager Sarah Gonzalez Deputy City Secretary Donna Schmoekel Mayor Pro -Tem Cedric Edwards Councilmember Ralph Gutierrez Councilmember Robin Thompson Councilmember Bert Crawford Call to Order — City Council Regular Session Mayor Carpenter called the meeting to Texas. (Councilmember Councilmember Kiser flags of the United Sta of Texas. City Manager J Clarissa 1 P.M. Wait followed by the pledges of allegiance to the nnouncements portion of the agenda. City Events (B. James /D. Wait /S. Gonzalez) Executive Director Dudley Wait who provided the following Thursday, August 10 First of Three Community Proposed- Budget Meeting 6:30 PM Schertz United Methodist Church - 3460 Roy Richard Drive Wednesday, August 16 Second of Three Community Proposed - Budget Meeting 6:30 PM Corbett Middle School —12000 Ray Corbett Drive Thursday, August 17 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes Page -1- Third of Three Community Proposed - Budget Meeting 6:30 PM North Community Center — 3501 Morning Drive Ribbon Cutting /Chamber Mixer at Schertz Auto Service Schertz Auto Service is holding a grand opening for their new location at 1000 FM 3009. Ribbon Cutting at 5:00 p.m. and the Mixer begins at 5:30 p.m. Friday, August 18 Casino Night 6:00 AM — 11:00 PM Schertz Civic Center Schertz Area Senior Center 5th Annual Fundraising Event. BBQ Dinner served from 6:00 PM — 7:30 PM. Casino Games played from 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM. Raffle and Prizes begin at 10:00 PM. Tickets cost $40 pre -sale at the Senior Center or The Chamber office. Tickets cost $50 at the door. Call Senior Center at X 19704or more information. Flyers are available in the foyer. Filing for Schertz City Council Election Began Monday, July 24 The City of Schertz will be holding its General Election on November 7, 2017 for the purpose of electing Council Members in Place 3, Place 4 and Place 5 for a three -year term, from November 2017 to November 2020. Any candidate desiring to have his or her name on the Official Ballot shall, no sooner than July 24, 2017, and no later than August 21, 2017, file with the City Secretary an application in writing in the form prescribed by the Texas Election Code requesting that his or her name be placed on the Official Ballot and declaring themselves as a candidate. Fridav:and Saturday. October 27 -29 River City CoImmunity hurch Grounds, 16765 Lookout Road, Selma This family friendly event features competitions, tethered balloon rides, food trucks, trackless train rides, vendors and musical concerts. Contact the Chamber at X 1950 for more information. Mayor Carpenter stated that as an addendum to the announcements, the last day to file for a place on the ballot in the upcoming election is on Monday, August 21st by 5:00 p.m. Announcements and recognitions by City Manager (J. Kessel) City Manager John Kessel stated he wanted to share a story that he just heard on his way in to the meeting tonight from Deputy City Secretary Donna Schmoekel. Last Tuesday 8 -08 -2017 Minutes Page - 2 - evening after the Council meeting she rescued two abandoned dogs from the side of the road and subsequently worked with our Animal Services Department to get them all checked out. She complimented Debbie Hernandez and Edward Armstrong who helped her through the process. Kuddos to Debbie and Edward who help out many other customers in that same manner. Their dedication and hard work is very much appreciated. Hearing of Residents • Ms. Maggie Titterington, The Chamber President, who stated she had some survey results she wanted to share with council this evening. The Chamber; staff polled not only their membership but also initiated about 100 other phone calls,' out of which only eighteen businesses made time to talk to them. They also sent out 18th -mails to Schertz businesses out of which they got another 18 who responded. The survey asked six basic questions. One of relation to the question: What type of assistant starting your business here in Schertz? The major ordinances, permits -- just general information al~ come a long way in these areas and now it is responders also said what would be helpful right information on regulations and ordinances, any a` some area business demographics. eye - opening responses was in have been most helpful when ust UDC information, signage, things. She feels the city has of just keeping that up. The zld be just some help with city nancial assistance (grants), and Workshop • Presentation and discussion of the FY 2017 -18 Proposed Budget. (J. Kessel/ J. Walters) Mayor Carpenter recognized Finance Director James Walters who provided information on the proposed FY 2017 -1.8 budget. He went over the FY 201.7 -18 proposed budget goals, management practices and priorities, as well as this year's highlights, including the hiring of 22 new staff members, equipment replacement, drainage channels maintenance and more. Mr. Walters provided some charts and statistics breaking down different categories of expenses, fund balance /equity, the general fund expenses and revenues, increases, 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes page - 3 - replacement capital and sales tax data. He presented charts comparing Revenues and Expenses, Reserve Funding, M &O Fund Balance and the 25% Goal figures from FY 2013 through FY 2018. Additional items of discussion were in regard to the city's long term debt model, the I &S Fund, debt service, the W &S fund, EMS fund, Drainage fund, 2017 Property values and taxes, as well as the tax rate, including the effective, rollback, current, and proposed maximum rate of $0.4910. There were several charts reflecting the historic tax rates in regard to the M &O and I &S. The scheduled public hearing dates are August 22 and August 29. The new budget for FY 201.7 -18 budget will officially go into effect as of October 1. Mr. Walters addressed comments and questions from Council. Mayor Carpenter inoved to the Oath of'Officeportion of'th A. Municipal Judge Oath of Office — Oath of Municipal Judge Darrell Dullnig. (B. Denni Deputy City Secretary Donna Schmoekel cam, Office to new City Municipal Judge, Darrell heartfelt congratulations to the new judge. Judge Dullnig stated he looks forwan years and he loves this community and, he wants there to be no doubt that he w it is your court, your city and your staf do it in an honorable way with fairness for the City of Schcrtz because he does Mayor would ►tered to newly appointed to administer oath) and administered the Oath of Mayor /Council extended their corking with everyone. He has been here 24 rtz has an incredible municipal court staff and 'or them and for Council. This is not his court, he is just" here to fulfill a role and he hopes to astice and most of all portray a positive image d love this community. lled to have him with us and look forward to to. We are glad to have you! to the dosed session part of the agenda. Mayor Carpenter recessed into closed session at 6:54 p.m. Closed Session 11. City Council will meet in closed session under Section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code, Personnel Matters to deliberate the appointment of a Municipal Prosecutor. Reconvene into Regular Session Mayor Carpenter reconvened into Regular Session at 7:25 p.m. l la. Take any action based on discussions held inclosed session under Agenda Item 11. 8 -08 -2017 Minutes Page - 4 - Mayor Carpenter made a motion from the Chair, seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards to approve appointing Tom Howe as the interim municipal prosecutor and Carlos Solis as interim assistant or alternate municipal prosecutor, and that we post for the positions of prosecutor and assistant prosecutor or alternate prosecutor beginning on August 18 and leaving those postings up through September 1, with the requirements that the prosecutors be licensed attorneys within the state of Texas and have municipal court experience. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. Mayor Carpen ter m oved back to th e worksh op part of Discussion and possible action regarding public speech,'Jucludingthe use of social media, "7 by appointed members of city boards, committees, 6'onumssions� and members of other corporations or boards where the city counicil or the mayor may have appointment authority. (Item requested by Councilmember, Crawford), Mayor Pro-Tern'Edwards suggested that city staff and the city attorney prepare something for�tts (general guidelines) tb4i"'could possibly be used for future training for all our city b6�fdsand committees.,:Councilmiember Thompson suggested a volunteer workshop. Mayor Carpenter summed up by saying he thinks what Council is saying is to have staff check and see'"What we do today and come forward with a simple recommendation for a cursory orientation ' ,that covers the basics of the open meeting act and what it means when one is thrust into,the public eye as a volunteer or appointee--and leave it at that. It seems the consensus of council is that the training and awareness needs to happen but the placing of any sort of restriction on the free speech of any resident of this city is not a direction we want to go. He feels it would be an even stronger position to take for Council to put forth a resolution that states 'We support, protect and preserve the right of every citizen regardless of whether or not they serve on a board, committee, commission, corporation or appointed position on this Council to speak their minds and exercise their right of free speech at any time they choose and in any manner, they choose in so much as 8-08-2017 Minutes Page - 5 - they do not cause harm to the City of Schertz.' He believes an affirmative statement is even better but he leaves that to the voting members of council. Discussion Items 1. Minutes — Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 1, 2017. . (J. Kessel /B. Dennis /D. Schmoekel) Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards who moved, seconded by Councilmember Thompson to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 1, 2017. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro - Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 2. Resolution No. 17 -R -58 — Consideration and /or,ctior an agreement for management services between the Ci Local Government Corporation. (D. Wait /A.' Briggs -B The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R )proving a'Resolution authorizing of Schertz and the Schertz /Seguin May ,Carpenter recognized Councilmember Davis who moved, seconded by Mayor Pro - Tem'E'dWards to approve Resolution No. 17 -R -58. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro- Tem,'E4wards, Cnuncilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 3. Resolution No. 17 -I2 -55 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, TX authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Restroom Facilities Ltd. to fabricate and install a set of outdoor restrooms at the Schertz Playscape. (B. James /C. VanZandt) The following was read into record: 8 -08 -2017 Minutes Page - 6 - RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -55 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCIIERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH RESTROOM FACILITIES, LTD FOR THE FABRICATION, SITE PREPARATION, AND INSTALLATION OF AN OUTDOOR RESTROOM FACILITY AT THE SCHERTZ PLAYSCAPE. Mayor Carpenter recognized Parks Director Chuck VanZandt; there were no further comments or questions from Council. Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards who moved, seconded by Councilmember Gutierrez to approve Resolution No: 7 7 -R -55: The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis,, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no; Motion passed. 4. Ordinance No. 17 -M -27 — Consideration' andltrr action, approving an Ordinance setting the Fee Schedule of the City of Schertz for FY 2011/18 First 12eading (J. KcsseUJ. Walters) The following was read into record-, ORDINANCE . 17-M-27 Mayor Carpenter' t' cognized Finance Director James Walters, Public Affairs Director Linda, Klepper and lecutive Director Brian. James who addressed questions from Council regarding the frequency of updating (civic center) fees and the justification for varied discounted rates such as city employee discounts, multiple use discounts and the guidelines` use to grant these discounts. What revenue is received and what benefits are there from 2rantin2 discounts? Councilmember Davis suggested having another larger discussion at a later time on this topic including other recreational venues like the civic center, community center and city pools. What could we do to make these public event centers profitable for the city? Mayor Carpenter concurred, saying we should ask ourselves, what are our goals and what are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to fully recover our costs and expenses or are we trying to establish good will with the community and those communities around us? Mayor Carpenter requested that the City Secretary's Office add an item to the next agenda where Council can discuss our fee schedule, our goals and the spirit of that schedule what we are trying to accomplish. 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes Page - 7 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Thompson who moved, seconded by Councilmember Davis to approve Ordinance 17 -M -27 first reading, with the understanding that Council with the assistance of city staff will thoroughly examine this as it impacts the FY 2018 -19. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tern Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 5. Resolution No. 17 -R -60 - Property Tax Rate — Cc Resolution taking a Record Vote on setting the Pre 2017 -18 and Scheduling of Public Hearings on the p Rate. (J. Kessel /J. Walters) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNC AUTHORIZING A PRELIMINARY MAI" 2017 -18, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CO on and /or action approving a Maximum Tax Rate for FY FY 2017 -18 Budget and Tax IF CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR ►N THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter recognized Finance Dire tcor James Walters who stated staff has proposed a budget balanced at a rate of .49 10, which i equal to the effective rate. Staff recommends this as the proposed maximum rate going forward. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Thompson who moved, seconded by Councihrnrnber Crawford to approve Resolution No. 17 -R -60, setting the preliminary maximum tai'rate for fY 2017 -18 at .4910 and scheduling Public Hearings for August 22 and 29, 2017. , , The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 6. Resolution No. 17 -R -59 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing an agreement for Provisions of Economic Development Services between the State of Texas Coma] County Commissioners Court and the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation. (J. Kessel/K. Kinateder) The following was read into record: 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes Page - 8 - RESOLUTION NO. 17-R-59 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR PROVISIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE STATE OF TEXAS COMAL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE CITY OF SCHERTZ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter recognized EDC Director Kyle Kinateder and,, said this is excellent and something we have been working on for years. As there were,, no questions from council, he made a motion from the Chair. Mayor Carpenter made a motion from the Chair, seconded by Councilmember Kiser to approve Resolution No. 17-R-59. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson,' Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 7. Resolution 17-R-63 — Consideration and/or action approving a resolution authorizing expenditures with Farrwest Environmental Supply not "to exceed more than $115,909.80 for new and replacement equipment doing the 2016-2017'fiscal year. (D. Wait/K. Long) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION EQ before ( utilized 20 O. 17- OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, 10ENDITURES WITH FARRWEST .SANG NO MORE THAN $115,909.80 FOR 7 FISCAL YEAR AND OTHER MATTERS ter recognized Fire Chief Kade Long who stated back in March they came I with a grant for $89,000 with Farrwest. The grant money has already been )w they just need a few more items, all of which are budgeted items. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Thompson who moved, seconded by Councilmember Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 17-R-63. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro-Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 8. Resolution 17-R-61 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement for the purchase of one (1) 2016 Freightliner Sprinter Van and associated equipment. (D. Wait/M. Bane) The following was read into record: 8-08-2017 Minutes Page - 9 - RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -61 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Mayor Carpenter recognized Assistant Police Chief Marc Bane who stated they are looking to replace a very nice 1996 Ford ambulance. They are wanting to fund this project completely out of federal seized assets which will not affect, the general funds. Council had no questions on this item. Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards who moved, seconded by Councilmember Kiser to approve Resolution No:', 17R-61. The vo e was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez,- Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no: Motion passed. 9. Resolution 17 -R -62 -- Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an ,agreement with Texas State Library and Archives Commission relating to the reimbursement of expenses, incurred through the lending of Schertz Public Library materials to other libraries. (B. Janie$ /M. Uhlhorn) Q�J[IffIX110M A RESOLUTION BY THE- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING ,:THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TEXAS STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES COMMISSION RELATING TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH THE LENDING OF SCHVRT PUBLIC LIBRARY MATERIALS TO OTHER LIBRARIES. .ter recogpized Library Director Melissa Uhlhorn who stated this item is for t of expenses —we will be getting money back. Council had no questions. Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards who moved, seconded by Councilmember, Thompson to approve Resolution No. 17 -R -62. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Edwards, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Thompson, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion passed. 10. Resolution No. 17 -R -64 – Consideration and /or action approving a request for a Historical Incentive :Program for the Main Street Area grant for 51.3 Main Street. (B. James) RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -64 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A HISTORICAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR 8 -08 -2017 Minutes Page -10 - 12. THE MAIN STREET AREA GRANT FOR 513 MAIN STREET IN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, AND RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter recognized Executive Director Brian James who stated the applicant, Mr. Longoria is here this evening if anyone has any questions for him. He is planning to do repairs to the building at 513 Main Street. To be clear, they do not intend to do a `full renovation' to complete repairs on everything that eventually needs to be done. As a church, they do not have the funds for that. The estimated cost provided is just under $15,000. The city upped the grant to $15,000 in anticipation they might incur some unforeseen extra costs. This is a one for one match, where he spends $7,500 and the city—spends $7,500. In addition to this, we have one more grant pending and if `js with the Main Street Committee. The idea was to get pO things. We may want to make some adjustments as we go for the city puts in as a match of funding—it could be half, less, or The Historical Committee has alr improvements being consistent with the probably time to revisit this le interested in doing some yard in relation to how much approv of the BE were made. 13. Council members to request that items be placed on a future agenda. No discussion of the merits of the item may be taken at this time. Should a Council Member oppose placement of the requested item on a future agenda, the Mayor shall instruct the City Secretary to place on the agenda for the next regular session an item to discuss the merits of placing the item that was objected to on a future agenda for full consideration. No requests were made. 14. Announcements by Mayor and Councilmembers • City and community events attended and to be attended • City Council Committee and Liaison Assignments (see assignments below) 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes Page - 11 - • Continuing education events attended and to be attended • Recognition of actions by City employees • Recognition of actions by community volunteers Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Crawford who stated he attended the grand opening ceremony of the Primrose School. It is a very nice school. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Thompson who stated he was approached by the owners of the Primrose School after many of the people left stating they were very impressed with the significant turnout by the Mayor and Councilmembers and they were very appreciative of the attendance. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Kiser: who 'stated that she thinks in the absence of City Secretary Brenda Dennis, Deputy City Secretar Donna Schmoekel has done an extraordinary job. Councilmembers concurred. Adiournment As there was no further business, Mayor Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 8 -08 -201.7 Minutes Page -12 - MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING July 28, 2017 A Special Meeting was held by the Schertz City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, on July 28, 2017, at 8:30 a.m., at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 5008 Corridor Loop Road, Schertz, Texas. The following members present to -wit: Mayor Michael Carpenter Councilmember Mark Davis Councilmember Scott Larson Councilmember Bert Crawford Staff Present: Executive Director Brian. James Executive Director Kyle Kinateder City Secretary Brenda Dennis James Walters, Finance Director Staff (who arrived at 2:26 p.m.) EMS Director Jason Mabbitt HR Director Jessica Kurz Senior Planner Bryce Cox Engineer Kathy Woodlee Asst. Police Chief Marc Bane Deputy Marshal Steve Pulaski GIS Coordinator Tony McFalls Director of Parks, Rec: Comn Guests Present: Glen Outlaw, Richard DziCW] Angelina Call to Mayor Carpenter Welcome /Overview Chuck a Library Director Melissa Uhlhorn Asst. Parks Director Lauren Shrum Police Chief Michael Hansen blic, Affairs Director Linda Klepper viromn ntal Health Manager Jessie Hamilton st. Fire Chief Kade Long Director Myles Clauser to order at 8:47 a.m. as there was a quorum present. • Discussion and direction regarding mid- budget preparation, including but not limited to the Reserve Policy, Contract Policy and City Policies, and department workload /project discussions, as well as key growth and service provision indicators such as population growth, tax base development, staffing levels and structure, and how to apply the information to assist in appropriate priority based decision making. (J. Kessel) General Comments 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 1 - Mayor Carpenter recognized City Manager John Kessel who outlined the goals for the retreat. The following items were discussed: • City Policies • The "Cut Line" and Expanded Programs • List options: 26% vs. 30% Reserve • Current Rate vs. Effective Rate vs. Rollback Rate • Staffing Plan • Procurement Philosophy • Reserve Philosophy • City Policies • Operational Policies • Support Policies • Human Resource Policies • Key Issues • Pace, Capacity, Capability • Directionally correct vs. perfect • Employment Engagement • Set goals and evaluate effective, • ADLI Approach (how do we ppro ch to developing policies ?) on evaluating the deployment compared to and deployment advance our cy 1 Harassment Policy Including termination) Evaluation policy • City Policies — Administrative • Credit Card • Vehicle Use Policy • Mobil Device Policy • Social Media Policy • Procurement Policy 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 2 - City Policies — HR • Sick Leave Pool Policy • On- boarding Policy • Travel Policy • FLMA Training • Time Recordation • City Branding City Policies • Agenda Policy • Computer Use Policy • Donation Solicitation • Awards, Gifts and retirement • Certification Pay • Benefits • Ultimately update entire emp Staffing Plan /structure: • Council asked staff to look into perfori highly generalized "Citizens Per Staff, • Staff looked at outsourced solutions an department reviews and generalized "S RollbackRate Plan than the a categories: detailed city reviews. General Fund — 5 Year Forecast Discussion General Fund Requested Programs Discussion Staffing Plan Discussion Mayor Carpenter call for a brief break at 11:39 a.m. for Lunch, Councilmember Crawford Left at 11:45 a.m. 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 3 - Councilmember Crawford left at 12:10 p.m. Mayor reconvened the meeting at 1159 a.m.: Base Budget • Tax Rate - Effective Rate — At this rate existing developments pay the average; additional City revenue would come from new deve and fees. RollbackRate • Highest Rate City Councils are allowed to authorize uni their sole authority • Council can approve a tax rate above the Rollback Rate as they did last year, on nt, additional sales taxes, Effective: Rollback: • 1 1 Council must set a • Council may adopt a final tax higher • Tax Rate- will tax bill the same as the Hiahest'rate City Councils are allowed to tax rate for public notices and hearings at or lower than the proposed maximum rate but not Current: $0.491.1. Effective: $0.4949 Rollback: $0.5122 Proposed: $0.4911 $0.01 is equal to $334,700 revenue or $21.72 on the average home • At the Current Rate: $0.491.1. Existing Residents Average Tax Bill 2016 Tax Bill = $1,005 Avg. Home Value $204,600 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 4 - 2017 . Tax Bill = $1,040 Avg. Home Value $211,800 Increase = $ 35 • At the Effective Rate: $0.4949 Existing Residents Average Tax Bill 2016 Tax Bill = $1,005 Avg. Home Value $204,600 2017 . Tax Bill = $1,048 Avg. Home Value $211,800 Increase = $ 43 • At the Rollback Rate: $0.51.22 Existing Residents Average Tax Bill. 2016 Tax Bill = $1,005 Avg. Home V 2017 Tax Bill = $1,085 Avg. Home' Increase = $ 80 Councilmember Crawford returned at 12 :42 p.m. Tax Rate — Based on Current Appraisals Additional General Fund Revenue Current Rate $0.4911: $413,3 Effective Rate SO.4949: X529.5' • Aa Tax Exeml = Dior Budget Go Discussion i contracts, i.e. Sources: $452,540 17 -18 Budget New Personnel, equipment and outsourcing Guest Richard Dziewit left at 2:00 p.m. • Discussion regarding other requests for the FY 2017 -1.8 budget. • Discussion regarding possible facilities improvements • Discussion regarding future debt service issuance • Discussion regarding HOT funds 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 5 - City Staff arrived at 2:26 p.m. • Reserve Philosophy Discussion • Discussion regarding reserve rate • Discussion Cut Line • The "Cut Line" and Expanded Program List Options: • Flat Rate at 26% vs. 30% Reserve • Current Rate vs. Effective Rate vs. Rollback Final comments were provided by City Manager John Kessel were present. Adjournment Mayor Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 3:41 p.r ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City 07 -28 -2017 Minutes Page - 6 - yor and members of Council that Agenda No. 2 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Administration /Finance Subject: Ordinance No. 17 -M -27 — Amending Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances by updating the Fee Schedule Final Reading BACKGROUND City Departments collect a wide variety of fees for permits, services, fines and other charges as part of the operation of municipal government. Since September 2008, fees have been incorporated into a single Fee Schedule. Ordinance 08 -M-43 established the consolidated Fee Schedule and allows for the modification of existing fees by resolution while new fees are established or added to the Fee Schedule by ordinance. The Fee Schedule ordinance provides a single document with all City fees that directly affect the users. All changes to the fee schedule will have at least a 45 -day period before the new fees take into effect. This allows staff to update and advise citizens on the upcoming changes. The Recommended effective dates of these fee changes will be October 1, 2017 for all fees except Garbage rates which will be January 1, 201.8. FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE: Animal Adoption Fees have now been added to the fee schedule and will be updated annually with the other Animal Services Fees. There is no proposed change to the adoptions fees but please note they will now be reflected on the fee schedule. Of the proposed fee changes for FY 201.7 -18, the changes to Event Facilities Rental Fees, Utility Fees, and the EMS interlocal per capita fees have material fiscal impact. The Event Facility staff handles approximately 1,035 annual rentals in the Event Facilities. Based on customer satisfaction surveys taken after the events, renters have indicated a 98% satisfaction rating with the facility and services. Reviewing current year's rentals, 21% of renters were Schertz residents. The highest percentage of renters are from San Antonio at 31 % while renters from Cibolo, Converse, Selma, New Braunfels, Universal City, and Seguin make up the remaining 48 %. The rental fees have not changed since 2009, while operational expenses have increased; a third event attendant position was added to help with the set -up, tear -down, clean -up, and general upkeep of the facilities. Event Attendants provide hands -on service throughout the entire event. The proposed rate increases for the Civic Center range from $75 to $200 on the all -day rates only with the highest increase on the Friday and Saturday rates. The facilities are booking into 2019, showing strong demand for the service and space. Services and charges vary across different venues in the region and all have very different rate structures. Looking at non - residential base rates on a per square foot of rental space and booking a room for 15 hours, Schertz' proposed facilities rates average in the middle of the 6 compared venues in New Braunfels, Garden Ridge, Seguin, Windcrest, Live Oak, and Olympia Hills. The Conference Package was removed from the Event Facilities Fee Schedule for 2 reasons: 1) it was not being utilized by customers and 2) the bundle didn't provide any discounts and was the cumulative fee of all the services it provided. Customers that would like the same services offered under the Conference Package can still get them a -la -carte and pay the same amount as before. The Banquet Package increased to match the increase in the regular rental rate plus the addition of the portable bar. The Banquet Package is a collection of common services bundled together at a slight discount. The portable bar is a highly requested item that the City currently does not provide. This new fee will be created to offset the cost of provided the portable bar service. Other rental fee changes include setting a discounted rate for HOA meetings, funeral receptions, and quality of life events. These events provide a special service to our residents who meet regularly, to help them in their time of need, or to provide a fun or relaxing event like Zumba and twirling classes. Other changes to the fee schedule include special discounts to attract repeat business and to drive more weekday and multi -day rentals. The proposed Utility Fees increase water fees by 3 %, sewer fees by 6 %, and garbage fees by 3 %. Overall this is expected to be a $3.87 per month increase on the average home or $46.44 annually. The water fees are proposed to increase per the recommended 5 -year rate plan proposed in the study conducted by WILLDAN consultants. The previous year increases were 2% in 2014 -15, 6% in 2015 -1.6, 11% in 2016 -17, and 3% proposed for FY 2017 -18. Starting in 2015 -16 the City began adjusting its rates in anticipation of the development of a new well field in Guadalupe County which was anticipated to cost $66 million. This additional debt service was to be split between Schertz and Seguin to provide adequate water resources for the customer communities, including Schertz. The study proposed stair step increases each year in order to accommodate the additional expenses that would be taken on by Schertz rather than a huge increase once the debt payments started. In 2016 -17, the rate increase was 11% after the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) stated they would no longer be buying water from Schertz- Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC). That extra revenue from the SAWS purchase lowered the amount Schertz and Seguin paid to cover SSLGC's debt payments. Without that revenue, both communities would see in the increase in annual operating expenditures and Schertz matched its rate increase to accommodate the additional expenditures. SAWS has since indicated that it will continue to buy water for the next few years but it is not known for how long. With the additional revenue coming in from SAWS and lower than expected operational expenditures from Schertz, the new rate plan recommends only a 3% water rate increase, or $1.60 per month on the average user, for FY 2017 -18. The sewer fees are also proposed to increase per the 5 -year rate study provided by WILLDAN consultants. During their review of our utility system, WILLDAN discovered the sewer fees do not cover the cost of provided sewer collection and treatment services. Their proposal was a series of rate increases, very high in the beginning and lower increases in out years, to have the sewer system stand on its own. The sewer fee is make up of a base charge that is charged no matter how many gallons used, a line maintenance fee that charged per 1,000 gallons used, and a treatment fee (user charge) that is charged per 1,000 gallons. The past increases averaged out to 35% increases on the base fee and the line maintenance fee for 3 years, and then about 22% for 2016 -17. Since the treatment part of the fee increased between 5 and 10 %, the overall bill increased an average of 15% each year the previous 4 years. The proposed bill increase for FY 2017 -18 is 6% or $1.92 per month on the average residential user. The rate plan will call for lower and lower increases as the sewer revenue catches up to the expenditures. The garbage fees are proposed to increase per the 8 -year agreement previously held by Bexar Waste. This agreement called for an approximate 3% rate increases every other year. Starting January 1, 2018, the final increase under the agreement, residents would pay $0.36 more per month. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) per capita fees is proposed to increase 3 %. Each community that contracts with Schertz to provide EMS coverage pays the per capita rate; which is a fee per citizen. These interlocal contracts allow for this rate to be increased up to 3% each year or match the medical consumer price index, whichever is lower. EMT Classes went up $100 to $1,100 due to an increase in the cost of the required training textbook and the online resources for each student. This increase is only to cover those cost increases. The proposed Library fee changes are not expected to have a material impact on service. Library staff is proposing putting a cap on the overdue amount built up on an overdue library loan item to encourage people to pay and still use the library in the future. The cost of replacing a library card is decreasing as proposed, while the cost of replacing a DVD case in increasing to match material cost changes. The Library is also proposing adding a materials recovery fee that will be added to a citizen's account if the city contracts with a library material recovery agency. Other fees being added or changing are not expected to have a material fiscal impact. Some, like the fee for requesting Police body camera footage, or the event fees, have already been put in place and are being added to the fee schedule. Others are to simplify the fee schedule but not change what is being charged. These are the Fire HAZMAT Fees being billed at cost rather than at a set table or setting a % discount for non - profits to use the magazine instead of having another category of fees. City Council approved this on first reading at their meeting of August 8, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed fee changes that are expected to result in material revenue changes are the updates to the Event Facilities Rental Fees for the Ballroom and Bluebonnet Hall, the updates to the Water & Sewer Fund rates, and the EMS Inter - Jurisdictional per capita fees. For Event Facilities, the requested rate increases would provide $25,000 in additional revenue for the General Fund. The increase in revenue will help with the maintenance and repairs of the building as normal wear and tear occurs throughout the years without relying on only tax payer dollars. For the Water & Sewer Fund, the proposed rate increases are expected to generate the additional revenue as seen in the Water Rate Study by WILLDAN consultants, to meet upcoming infrastructure needs. The changes in water and sewer rates are expected to have an additional $3.51 impact per customer, per month (water, $1.60 and sewer, $1.91). In 2022, The City of Schertz is expected to pay an additional $1,683,000 annually to support the development of the Guadalupe Well Field and Treatment Plant. The 5 -year rate plan recommends annual increases in preparation of the additional expense (stair -step approach), to help absorb the fiscal impact in 2022. For the EMS Inter- Jurisdictional fees, there will be a 3% increase on the per capita charge to match the Medical Care Consumer Price Index (CPI) change as provided for in the interlocal agreements. This additional $120,000 will allow EMS to adjust their upcoming budget to match inflation. All other fee changes are not expected to have a material fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve Ordinance No. 17 -M -27, amending Appendix C of the Code of Ordinances on final reading. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 17 -M -27 Fee Schedule Fee Schedule Summary of Changes FYI 7 -18 Civic Center Fee Schedule Justification Texas Administration Code rule 70.13 2017 Water and Wastewater WILLDAN Council Presentation July 11, 2017 r;� r� r >r � ♦' r r ♦; 1 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. Passed and approved on the first reading this Stn day of August 2017. . PASSED AND APPROVED ON FINAL READING this 22 nd day of August 2017. Michael Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary EXHIBIT A City of Schert2 Proposed Schedule of Fees Effective October 1st, 2017 Garbage Rates Effective January 1st, 2018 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees All Departments 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 Records Requests Acknowledgement, Certified Copies, Jurat's, Oaths and Affirmation $ 6.00 Standard paper copy, per page $ 0.10 $ 0.10 (front and back is 2 pages) $ 5.00 Convenience Fees Nonstandard -size copy: Oversize paper copy (11" X 17 ") $ 0.50 $ 0.50 Specialty paper (Mylar, blueprint, blue line, map, photographic) Return Check Fee 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 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees City Secretary 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Library 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 Materials (ILL Materials) Lost or damaged ILL items - Cost of item as billed by the lending library Actual Actual (may include additional fines or fees assessed by the lending library) Inter - Library Loan items per day (3 day grace period) $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Max overdue amount per Ii_t. item NIA $ 5.00 Overdue Fines (3 day grace period) All Items per day (except ILL items) $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Max amount that can be charged $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Replacement Library Card $ 5.00 $ $1.170 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) $ 1.00 $ 3,00 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 $ 3,00 (if replaceable) plus processing fee Toddler Tote Bag $ 2.50 $ 2.50 Juvenile Audiobook Bag $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Materials Recovery Fee NIA $ 10,00 (per account .sent to collections) Note: If an item is lost and paid for, any overdue fines assessed against the item are waived. If part of an item is lost, the item as a whole is considered lost and the full cost of the item is charged to the patron. Again, any overdue fines assessed against the item are waived if the item is paid for. Refunds for items that were paid for and subsequently found and returned to the library are available for up to 60 days after payment and require the original receipt. Processing fees are non - refundable. No refunds will be given after 60 days. City of Schertz Schedule of Fees ISchertz Magazine 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 Display Ads: Quarter Page for 3 mo., per month Back Cover for 6 mo., per month $ 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: $ 550 DELETE Quarter Page for 3 mo., per month 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 DELETE Quarter Page for 3 mo., per month $ 300 DELETE Quarter Page for 6 mo., per month $ 250 DELETE Half Page for 1 mo., per month $ 775 DELETE Half Page for 3 mo., per month $ 550 DELETE Half Page for 6 mo., per month $ 375 DELETE Full Page for 1 mo., per month $ 1,100 DELETE Full Page for 3 mo., per month $ 900 DELETE Full Page for 6 mo., per month $ 700 DELETE *" We are doing tawny with individual prices lbr nose - profit rates. Rather, nora- profits will receive 5% off of the normal rate for the contractual length of agreement, 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. City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Event Facilities $ 2016 -17 2017 -18 Vendor /Ancillary Fees Sweetheart Tickets - Night Of $ 15.00 Kitchen Fee, per person $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Electrical Fee (Tradeshows), per Exhibitor $ 25.00 $ 25.00 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 Beverage Service $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Cancellation Fee $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Portable Bar (includes 5 cocktail tables) 30.00 N/A $ 200.00 Discount/Special Rates City Employees - 25% discount with no deposit Frequent Renters 25% discount (Events occurring multiple times during the month /week/year) Multiple Day Renters 25% discount (total rent - two or more days) Day before setup - 50% of regular room rate Non - Profits 25% discount - rent only All comp'd requests will require approval from City Manager Sweetheart Tickets- Pre sale $ 10.00 $ 10.00 Sweetheart Tickets - Night Of $ 15.00 $ 15.00 H.O.A. Meeting Fee $ NIA $ 75,00 Funeral Reception Only in Bluebonnet Hall /Community Centers 3 hr maximum $ N/A $ 75.00 Quality of Life Events ( Community Centers Only) $ N/A $ 15.05 Facility Security $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Security Coordination Fee $ 15.00 $ 15.00 Regular- per officer, per hour (4 hour minimum) $ 30.00 $ 30.00 Holiday- per officer, per hour (4 hour minimum) $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Civic Center - Grand Ballroom- (7,198 sq. ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 700.00 $ 800,00 Sunday, Half day $ 450.00 $ 450.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 500.00 $ 800°00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 375.00 $ 375.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,600.00 $ 1,800,00 Small Stage $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Large Stage $ 200.00 $ 400,00 Dance Floor $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 500.00 $ 500.00 AudioNisual Services (contracted) $ 175.00 $ 175.00 Additional time, per hour $ 50.00 $ 50.00 AudioNisual Panel Access $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Banquet Package - includes hall rental,easel, tables /chairs, dance floor, AV panel access, ice, Gathering Room, Portable Bar, cocktail tables, kitchen: Sunday, Full day $ 1,200.00 $ 1,500.00 Sunday, Half day $ 950.00 $ 950.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 1,000.00 $ 1,800.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 875.00 $ 875.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 2,100.00 $ 2,500.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, easel, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday, Full day $ 900.00 DELETE Sunday, Half day $ 650.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 700.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 575.00 DELETE Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,800.00 DELETE Civic Center Cut -Off Hall (Larger portion of Ballroom - (4,172 sq ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Sunday, Half day $ 325.00 $ 325.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 325.00 $ 425.00 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Event Facilities $ 2016 -17 2017 -18 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,200.00 $ 1,400,00 Small Stage $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Large Stage $ 200.00 $ 4100,00 Dance Floor $ 200.00 $ 200.00 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 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 500.00 $ 500A0 Banquet Package - includes hall rental,easel, tables /chairs, dance floor, AV panel access, ice, Gathering $ 600.00 Room, Portable Bar /cocktail tables, Kitchen Fee: Sunday, Half day $ 450.00 Sunday, Full day $ 1,000.00 $ 1,300.00 Sunday, Half day $ 825.00 $ 825.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 825.00 $ 1,125.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 750.00 $ 750.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,700.00 $ 2,100.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday, Full day $ 700.00 DELETE Sunday, Half day $ 525.00 DELUE Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 525.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 450.00 DELETE Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,500.00 DELETE Civic Center Conference Hall (Smaller portion of Ballroom - (3,026 sq ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Sunday, Half day $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 175.00 $ 175.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 575.00 $ 600.00 Audiovisual Access $ 25.00 $ 25.00 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Sunday, Full day $ 600.00 DELETE Sunday, Half day $ 450.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 450.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 375.00 DELETE Civic Center - Bluebonnet Hall- (2,500 sq ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 300.00 $ 400.00 Sunday, Half day $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 225.00 $ 250.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 125.00 $ 125.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 575.00 $ 600.00 Kitchen $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Audiovisual Access $ 25.00 $ 50,00 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Banquet Package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, AV panel access, ice, kitchen: Sunday, Full day $ 400.00 $ 525.00 Sunday, Half day $ 300.00 $ 325.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 325.00 $ 375.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 225.00 $ 250,00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 675.00 $ 725.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday, Full day $ 400.00 DELETE Sunday, Half day $ 300.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 325.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 225.00 DELETE Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 600.00 DEI...ETE Community Center North- 3501 Morning Dr- (2,006 sq ft) Sunday, Full day $ 200.00 $ 200.00 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Event Facilities $ 2016 -17 2017 -18 Sunday, Half day $ 125.00 $ 125.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 300.00 $ 300.00 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Community Center Central Sunday, Full day $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Sunday, Half day $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Stage $ 100.00 DELETE Projector /Screen /Microphone $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Damage /Cancellation Deposit $ 200.00 $ 200.00 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. City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Event Fee 17777TE Jubilee $ 200.00 Food Vendor $ 500.00 Beverage Vendor $ 300.00 Cooler Booth Rental $ 1,500.00 Carnival $ 6,000.00 Craft Vendor $ 50.00 Business Vendor $ 200.00 Parade Entry $ 35.00 SchertzQ Food Truck Vendor $ 200.00 Beverage Vendor $ 100.00 Cooler Booth Rental $ 1,000.00 Jackpot Beans $ 25.00 BBQ Entry $ 200.00 Cooks Choice $ 25.00 Retail /Craft $ 100.00 Business Vendor $ 200.00 Ice $ 3.00 Kids Q $ 25.00 Festival of Angels Food Vendor $ 50.00 Craft Vendor $ 50.00 Parade Entry $ 15.00 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Parks and Recreation 2016 -17 2017 -18 Pavilion Rental Rates - Small Pavilion Schertz Residents Rental Fee (6am -2pm) or (3pm -11 pm) $ 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 -11 pm) $ 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 Al City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Parks and Recreation 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 Out of City $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 120.00 $ 120.00 ` ill City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Parks and Recreation 2016 -17 2017 -18 * *THESE RATES NOW SET BY CONTRACTOR ** 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 ** It City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Animal Services $ 2016 -17 $ 2017 -18 Pet License $ 00M $ 00M Standard fee, $ 5.00 $ 5.00 license per year per spayed or neutered animal $ 131.50 $ 131.50 Standard fee, $ 10.00 $ 10.00 license per year per un- spayed or un- neutered animal $ 137M $ 137M Replacement tags (if lost) $ 2.00 $ 2.00 Cat or Dog that has been spayed of neutered regardless of weight $ 65.00 $ 65.00 Cat, male $ 00M $ 00M Cat, female $ 113.50 $ 113.50 Dog, male under 60 lbs. $ 131.50 $ 131.50 Dog, male 60 lbs. and over $ 140.00 $ 140.00 Dog, female under iii lies. $ 137M $ 137M Dog, female: between 30 and 60 lbs. $ 142.50 $ 142.50 Dog, female 61 lbs. and over $ 15900 $ 15900 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 Each Additional Offense 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 1 st 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 $ 150.00 Base- Un- neutered $ 170.00 $ 170.00 Per Additional Offense $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Fowl or other small animal $ 30.00 $ 30.00 Livestock $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Zoological /Circus animal $ 200.00 $ 200.00 12 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jAnimal Services 1 2016 -171 $ 2017 -181 Boarding Fee: A boarding fee must be paid for each animal $ 35.00 $ 35.00 Dog /Cat, per day $ 15.00 $ 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 $ 5.00 13 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Marshal Service 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 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 $ 100.00 *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. Sanitation Inspection Fees - Outside of City Hourly Charge, one hour minimum Mileage over 15 miles, per mile Administrative Fee $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 15% 15% 14 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Police Department $ 2016 -17 2017 -18 Alarm Permit Fees $ 150.00 $ 150.00 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 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 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 BODY CAM VIDEO ($1.00 per minute +$10.00) N/A $ 10.00 15 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Fire Department and Haz -Mat Fees $ 2016 -17 $ 2017 -18 Permit Fee Schedule $ 25.00 $ 25.00 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 Flammable or combustible gas 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.) $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Plan Review Fees, construction per hour $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Plan Review Rush, Outsource - Sent out by Fire Marshal $ 50.00 $ Cost SFR After Hours Plan Review Rush (per hour, 2 hour minimum) $ 150.00 $ 65.00 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 Food Booth (per booth, per event) $ 25.00 $ 25.00 Mobile Food Establistments (annual) $ 25.00 $ 25.00 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. The current replacement cost shali be charged for the use of conaurnable ha -gnat supplies and firefighting agents COST if any protective equipment or firefighting equipment is damaged or contaminated, the current replacement coat shall be charged. COST Personnei coat will be calculated at the rate for the responding crew members. COST hlasarclous materials operations service tees. (a) Communications, The following fees for dispatching shall be charged for fire department response: 1. Dispat& tee, $ 75.00 DELETE Administration Fee 15% DELETE (b) Apparatus, The following fees shall be charged for emergency response operations, 1. Class A pumper, per hour $ 250,O0 DELETE 2. Aerial appar'attss, per hOLAr $ 000,00 DELETE 2. Tanker apparatus, per hour $ 175.00 DELETE 4. Rescue truck, per hour $ 150.00 DELETE 5, command unit, per hour $ 75.00 DELETE 0. Rescue boat, per hour $ 150.00 DELETE 7. Rehab ur °sit„ per I °your $ 75,00 DELETE ft. Staff vehicle, per hour $ 75.00 DELETE g. Brush truck, per hour $ 150.00 DELETE NOTE.: Non - emergency, standby and returning to services fees Wil be charged at one- half the hourly rate: 16 City of Sobartz Schedule of Fees IFire Department and Haz-Malt Fees 2016-171 M personnel, The following fees for personnel shall bm charged for operations response: 1, Firefighter, per hour $ 20,00 DELETE 2, Haz-nat tech, per hour $ 25,00 DELETE 3. Mmz-mod operation, per hour $ 25D0 DELETE 4, Fire inspectors, per hour $ 30,00 DELETE 5, Fire investigators, per hour $ 30,00 DELETE 6, Incident commander, per hour $ 40D0 DELETE (d) Hmz-mat, The following fees for Maz-mat supplies shall be charged for operations response: 1 Absorbent, per bag $ 15O0 DELETE 2, Drum liners, each $ 10�00 DELETE B, L|te-dri. per 5O Is, bag $ 2000 DELETE 4, Top-eo|. per bag $ 3000 DELETE 5, Barricade tape, per roll $ 20D0 DELETE 8, Poly sheeting, per roll $ 50D0 DELETE 7, Plug and patch kit, Plug 'nDike $ 205.00 DELETE 8, Rag and Dike Kit Complete $ 5000 DELETE 9, Disposable coveralls, each $ 45U0 DELETE 10, Latex gloves, pair $ 5D0 DELETE 11, Disposable goggles, pair $ 1000 DELETE 12, Bvmwm.eaoh $ 40,00 DELETE 18, Shovel, each $ 50,00 DELETE (e) Protective equipment replacement, The following fees for damaged mr contaminated protective equipment shall be charged for operations response, 1 Helmet, each $ 250,00 DELETE 2, Nomex hood, each $ 35D0 DELETE 3, Bunker coat, each $ 98900 DELETE 4, Bunker pants, each $ 98300 DELETE 5, FF boots, pair $ 120,00 DELETE 6, FF0|ovea, pair $ 49�00 DELETE (f) Firey�; &ngaDants, The following fees for specialized fire protection supplies shall be charged for operations response, DELETE 1, AFFF foam, per gallon $ 75,00 DELETE 2 Class Ahzem. per gallon $ 85�00 DELETE 3, Li0Mt water, per gallon $ 20,00 DELETE 4. Micro-clean, per gallon $ 80D0 DELETE 5, Gtmr-dust. per 15|b, beg $ 25,00 DELETE 17 City of Sobartz Schedule of Fees IFire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2016-171 (g) Firefighting equipment replacement, The following fee for damaged cx contaminated equipment shall be charged for operations response: 1, Hose 1,U" (each 5O') $ 255,00 DELETE 2, Hose 175^ (each 5O') $ 350,00 DELETE 3. Hose 2,5" (each 5O') $ 172DO DELETE 4, Hose 3D'' (each 5O') $ 225,00 DELETE 5, Home 5,8'' (each 1O0') $ 950,00 DELETE 6, Hose 1D'' booster (each 50') $ 270,00 DELETE 7, SCBA air mask (emch) $ 375DO DELETE B, SCBA air mask complete (eaoh) $ 6.555D0 DELETE 9, SCBA spare cylinders (each) $ 1^25500 DELETE 10, 12'nmof ladder (mach) $ 330,00 DELETE 11, 14' roof ladder (eech) $ 375DO DELETE 12, 24'mxtensiwn ladder (emok) $ 525,00 DELETE 13, 35'extens|on ladder (wach) $ 92500 DELETE 14, A-frame combo ladder (ea&) $ 480,00 DELETE 15, PASS alarm (each) $ 2OODO DELETE 16, Portable radio, each $ 3.40000 DELETE 17, Fog nozzle 1,5-175".each � 645,00 DELETE 10, Fog nozzle 1.0", each $ 5400O DELETE 19, Fog nozzle 2,5".each $ 705D0 DELETE 20, Fog nozzle 2.5^ Master, each $ 84700 DELETE 21, Stacked tips vdahaper.each $ 586,00 DELETE 22, Deluge moni8mrvdo pie and tips, each $ 2.575M DELETE 23, Foam aerator tube, each $ 39&00 DELETE 24, 8' attic folding ladder, each $ 23000 DELETE 25� 1O'' attic folding ladder, each $ 255,00 DELETE 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 DELETE 2, Cutters, per hour $ 125M DELETE 3, Rem(a). per hour $ 125D0 DELETE 4, Pprta power, per hour $ 55M DELETE 5, Ajax cutting tool, per hour $ 35,00 DELETE U, BewS-eU. per hour $ 65M DELETE 7, Air impact tools, per hour $ 85,00 DELETE 8, Oxygen with mask, per hour $ 90M DELETE B, Air bags, per hour $ 175,00 DELETE (|) Fire, equipment used, 18 City of Sobartz Schedule of Fees IFire Department and Haz-Mat Fees 2016-171 The following fees for fire equipment used shall bmcharged for operations response: 1, CammaW/piCtUree. each set $ 35M DELETE 2, Ce||u|ar phone wNonBUist, Chg $ 25,00 DELETE 3, Command light $ 250,00 DELETE 4, Tripod light, each $ 25,00 DELETE 5. Hand lights, each $ 15DO DELETE 6, Water eXtinguisher.each $ 15,00 DELETE 7, ABC extinguisher, each $ 4000 DELETE 8, CO2 extinguisher, each $ 40D0 DELETE 9, Chain Saw, per hour $ 40DO DELETE 10, Rescue (K'12) saw, per hour $ 40.00 DELETE 11, Generator, per hour $ 4500 DELETE 12, PPV fans, per hour $ 50D0 DELETE 11 Halligan tool $ 2ODO DELETE 14, Bolt cutters (Hn) $ 2000 DELETE 15, Salvage covers, each $ 2500 DELETE 16, Hall runner, each $ 15UO DELETE 17, Rolls of plastic, each $ MOO DELETE 18, Gas plug/gasoline plug kit $ 45,00 DELETE 19, Explosive meter $ 18000 DELETE 20, SCBA.amoh $ 75,00 DELETE 21, Refill SCBA bottle, each $ &OO DELETE 22, Bardcade/scenetape $ 2000 DELETE 23, Tank.pmdeb|e/fo|d-e-tmnh $ 150,00 DELETE 24, Flappers/fire bmomo.each $ |O,OO DELETE 25, K-Tool $ MOD DELETE 26, Stokes basket wVbhd|e $ 8500 DELETE 27� Windshield tool $ 1000 DELETE 28, Kendr|x extrication device $ 85,00 DELETE 29, All other non -listed items Cost DELETE p|ua administration fee 15% DELETE 19 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees EMS 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 Response Services $ 125.00 $ 125.00 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 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,100.00 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 $ 14.03 14.40 20 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Planning and Zoning 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 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 21 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Planning and Zoning 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 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. 22 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Inspections 1 2016-171 2017 -18 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) Preliminary Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum) Irrigation Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum) Additional Plan Review (ie Revised), per hour (1 hour minimum) Commercial /Civil Express Plan Review, per hour (2 hour minimum)* Commercial /Civil Outsource Plan Review* *Deposit Required Construction beginning without permit, pay additional: Failure to Request Inspection, per trade Failure to Obtain Contractors License /Provide Insurance Permit Fees: Cost of Construction (Cost) $0.00 to $1,000.00 $1,001.00 to $15,000.00, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof $15,001.00 to $50,000.00, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof $50,001 and up, for each additional $1,000 and fraction thereof Following Use The Cost of Construction (Cost) Table: Flatwork /Deck Accessory Buildings Patio /Patio Cover Roof Replacement With a Roof Replacement No Charge for Solar Panel Reinstallation Permit Window Replacement Swimming Pools in Ground Swimming Pools above Ground Sign Foundation Repair 100.00 $ 00 01 100.00 $ 100.04 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 Cost $ Cost :D $ :a Actual $ Actual Cost $ Cost 100.00 $ 100.0# 100.00 $ 100.04: $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Cost $ Cost Fence (New and Replacement) $ 50.00 $ Siding /Fascia $ 75.00 $ Gutters $ 50.00 $ Temporary Building or Structure $ 50.00 $ Moving Permit Fee $ 100.00 $ Demolition Permit Fee $ 60.00 $ Mobile Home Permit Fee (plus sub - trades as necessary) $ 25.00 $ Certificate of Occupancy $ 50.00 $ Pre Certificate of Occupancy Inspection $ 200.00 $ Failure to Obtain Certificate of Occupancy $ 200.00 $ Compliance Inspection, each trade $ 50.00 $ Temporary Sign $ 30.00 $ Development Sign $ 100.00 $ Banner $ 25.00 $ Street Span Banner $ 25.00 $ Garage Sale Permit; Includes 2 signs, limit 4 events per year $ 22.00 $ HOA Garage Sale Permit $ 50.00 $ Two additional garage sale signs; each $ 5.00 $ Home Occupation Permit (annually) $ 35.00 $ •1 11 25.011: 25.011: 22.011: 50.04: 5.011: 35.04: 23 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Inspections 1 2016-171 2017 -18 Electrical Permit Fees Electrical Repair /Replacement New Construction per building /unit Mechanical Permit Fees Mechanical Repair /Replacement New Construction per building /unit Plumbing Permit Fees Plumbing Repair /Replacement New Construction per building /unit Lead Solder Test Irrigation Permit Fees Permit Fee plus per sprinkler head plus per backflow or RPZ subsequent to the installation of the piping or equipment served, each Re- Inspection Fees Each re- inspection, per trade Re- inspections after first, per trade 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. 1=10, .1 11 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 24 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Inspections 1 2016-171 2017 -18 Licenses /Registrations: $ 50.00 $ 50.00 General Contractor (Initial) $ 150.00 $ 150.00 General Contractor (Renewal) $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Master Electrician (Initial) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Master Electrician (Renewal) State of Texas Issued $ N/C $ N/C Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued $ N/C $ N/C Apprentice /Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued $ N/C $ N/C Mechanical Contractor (Annually) State of Texas Issued $ N/C $ N/C Plumbing Contractor (Annually)* State of Texas Issued $ N/C $ N/C Irrigation (Annually) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Backflow Tester - State of Texas Issued permit fee N/C N/C Sign Contractor (Initial) $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Sign Contractor (Renewal) $ 40.00 $ 40.00 Electrical Sign Contractor (Initial) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Electrical Sign Contractor (Renewal) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Electric Sign Journeyman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Electric Sign Apprentice /Wireman Electrician (Annually) State of Texas Issued N/C N/C Utility Contractor (Annually) $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Mobile Home Park (Annually) $ 40.00 $ 40.00 *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 10% of permit fee 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. RM City of Schertz Schedule of Fees G.I.S. 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 Standard size maps are available for download in Portable Document Format (PDF) on the City Website free of charge. www.schertz.com /maps_gis.htmi 26 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Engineering 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 Development Permit % of total valuation of public infrastructure improvements 1 % 1 % 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. 27 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Drainage Fees 2016 -17 2017 -18 Charge Per Residence $ 5.20 $ 5.20 Commercial, per LUE $ 5.20 $ 5.20 Floodplain Permit $ 20.00 $ 20.00 28 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works - Streets 1 2016 -171 $ 2017 -181 Chipping charges, per half hour $ 25.00 $ 40.00 Professional services, per month Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 $ 2017 -18 Light retail, wholesale, commercial Residential: Zone I: Once a week pick up One 96 gallon cart provided by franchisee, per month $ 12.05 $ 12.41 Residents requesets 2 carts total: $ 18.05 $ 13.50 Resident requests 3 carts total: $ 24.08 $ 24.30 Resident requests 4 carts total: $ 30.09 $ 3099 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2,05 Zone 2: Single Family, twice per week pick up, per month, no cart provided $ 12.05 $ 12,41 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2.05 Front Porch Pick Up $ 17.59 $ 13.11 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2.05 Special Pickup: Move Ins, Special Tree Trimmings, oversize $ 16.79 $ 1729 materials, & similar circumstances; minimum Class II: Mobile Home Parks $ 9.61 $ 9.90 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 $ 9.61 $ 9.90 per unit/monthly Class IV: Motels $ 4.24 $ 4.37 per unit/monthly 2. Commercial Class V: $ 15.25 $ 15.70 Offices, barber shops and Professional services, per month Class VI: $ 26.30 $ 27,08 Light retail, wholesale, commercial or industrial, 2000 to 4000 square feet and excluding large grocery stores, etc., per month Class VII: $ 38.20 $ 39,34 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 $ 39.43 $ 40.61 29 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 Class Vlll: 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 $ 67.87 $ 69.89 B. Two weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers, excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 135.73 $ 189.77 C. Three weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers, excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 212.09 $ 218.41 D. Four weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 254.47 $ 262.05 E. Five weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 339.31 $ 349,42 F. Six weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 424.20 $ 436.84 G. Customer requiring more than four (4) cu. Yds each pickup would be charged per cu. Yds. Collected., per yard $ 4.70 $ 4.84 30 City of Sobartz Schedule ofFees IGarbage Collection Fees 1 2016-171 2017-18 o. Commercial Containers' CONTRACTOR will provide commercial containers »o those customers who desire 0u use them inlieu of garbage cans. The use of such CONTRACTOR provided containers in required by this contract. Rates for containers and pickup will bebased nn the following table: of Container Size: Frequency Pickup 10 cu. Yard $ 10024 $ 305.35 $ 432.60 $ 542.94 $ 05318 $ 763.44 Commercial Recycle Hauling Permit $ 2.500,00 31 1 2 8 4 s 8 2 cu. Yard $ 58.45 $ 101,23 $ 122,28 $ 139,79 $ 157,26 $ 17472 3nu. Yard $ 71.65 $ 129,26 $ 178 23 $ 204,38 $ 230.63 $ 25&82 4 cu. Yard $ 88.06 $ 153,79 $ 20M5 $ 253,32 $ 397,04 $ 34071 O cu. Yard $ 125,84 $ 209,65 $ 288,30 $ 386.95 $ 445,48 $ 524.14 U cu. Yard $ 140M $ 270,81 $ 375.60 $ 480,46 $ 586,04 $ 690,14 1U cu. Yard $ 171,18 $ 314,45 $ 445,49 $ 55912 $ 672,64 $ 78619 1 2 3 4 s 8 2 cu. Yard $ 57.73 * 98.30 $ 118.74 $ 135.74 $ 152.71 $ 109.00 3 cu. Yard $ 08.58 $ 125.52 $ 173.07 $ 188.47 $ 223.90 $ 24938 4 cu. Yard $ 8048 * 149.34 $ 203.58 $ 245.99 $ 288.44 $ 330.85 G cu. Yard $ 12220 $ 203.58 $ 278.86 $ 356.33 $ 432.00 $ 508.97 D cu. Yard $ 144.23 $ 202.97 $ 30473 $ 460.50 $ 509.08 $ 070.17 10 cu. Yard $ 10024 $ 305.35 $ 432.60 $ 542.94 $ 05318 $ 763.44 Commercial Recycle Hauling Permit $ 2.500,00 31 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 20 cu. Yard $ 313.85 $ 32120 30 cu. Yard $ 37122 $ 334,34 40 cu. Yard $ 432.60 $ 445,42 Roll -off Rental (no pulls within billing cycle) $ 129.78 $ 133.65 per container per month Collection and Disposal of Municipal Wastes $ 28.84 $ 5. Wet Material Rates on Compactor containers 3 cu yard $ 36.05 or open top containers with wet material must be 37.12 4 cu yard $ negotiated with customers at the time they are $ 44,56 6 cu yard needed. This type of waste must be hauled to a 50.48 $ 51,98 Type I landfill which generally has a higher $ 57.69 $ disposal rate attached to it. 10 cu yard $ 64.89 Roll -off Container Delivery Charge per container $ 37.82 $ 38,95 Roll -off Relocation or Trip Charge per container $ 37.82 $ 33.25 2 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week) $ 223.61 $ 230.27 Extra pick ups (2 yard compactor), each $ 84.78 $ 87,31 4 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week) $ 460.66 $ 474.32 30 cu yard Compactor, per pull $ 568.36 $ 58530 40 cu yard Compactor, per pull $ 675.25 $ 69537 30 cu yard Open -top (Recycle), per pull $ 211.95 $ 218.27 Front -Load container extra pick -up charges 2 cu yard $ 28.84 $ 29,70 3 cu yard $ 36.05 $ 37.12 4 cu yard $ 43.27 $ 44,56 6 cu yard $ 50.48 $ 51,98 8 cu yard $ 57.69 $ 59A1 10 cu yard $ 64.89 $ 66,82 OVER WEIGHT CHARGE $ 28.93 $ 29,72 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. 32 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Business Office 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 Water Deposit In City $ 125.00 $ 125.00 Out of City $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Commercial $ 100.00 $ 100.00 or 2.5 times estimated monthly billing 2.5x 2.5x Disconnect Fee $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Extension Fee $ 5.00 $ 5.00 2 free extensions $ 25.00 $ 25.00 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 2.5x 2.5x 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 33 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works 2016 -17 2017 -18 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 Installation Fees - Inside the City Meter Size 5/8" X 3/4" $ 275.00 $ 330.00 3/4" X 3/4" $ 302.00 $ 345.00 1" X 1" $ 385.00 $ 450.00 1.5" X 1/5" $ 646.00 $ 330.00 2 "X2" $ 1,822.00 $ 1,940.00 *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 34 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works 2016 -17 2017 -18 Meter Installation Fees - Outside the City Meter Size 5/8" X 3/4" 3/4" X 3/4" 1" X 1" 1.5" X 1/5" 2" X 2" *2" turbine *3" Comp *3" turbine *4" Comp *4" turbine Fire Hydrant Meter for Construction Deposit (refundable) Service Charge Wholesale Water Distribution Rate Base Rate, per month 3 Inch Compound Meter 3 Inch Turbine Meter 4 Inch Compound Meter 4 Inch Turbine Meter 6 Inch Compound Meter 6 Inch Turbine Meter 8 Inch Compound Meter 8 Inch Turbine Meter 10 Inch Compound Meter 10 Inch Turbine Meter 12 Inch Turbine Meter 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. $ 285.00 340,00 $ 312.00 355.00 $ 395.00 400.00 $ 656.00 390,00 $ 1,832.00 1,950.00 Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor Cost + Labor $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 315.28 $ 315.28 $ 472.92 $ 472.92 $ 492.63 $ 492.63 $ 827.62 $ 827.62 $ 985.26 $ 985.26 $ 1,812.88 $ 1,812.88 $ 1,576.80 $ 1,576.80 $ 3,153.60 $ 3,153.60 $ 2,266.65 $ 2,266.65 $ 4,927.50 $ 4,927.50 $ 6,504.30 $ 6,504.30 35 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Sewer Rates - CCMA/GBRA Customers ( 2016 -171 2017 -181 Residential Rates (Single Family) Base Rate -per month $ 11.16 $ 11,72 Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month City line Maintenance fee plus Franchise fee $ 0.44 $ 6.46 User Charge based on 100% of avg consumption mo. $ 3.35 $ 3,58 User avg. based on Nov, Dec, and Jan, min, 560 gals $ 3.88 $ 4,14 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.79 $ 4,64 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.34 $ 8.76 Business and Multi - family Dwelling Units: Base Rate per month $ 14.03 $ 14.73 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 $ 0.53 $ 0,55 User Charge -based on 100% of water consumed $ 3.35 $ 3,53 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.88 $ 4,14 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.42 $ 8.84 Public Schools Base Rate per month $ 3.35 $ 3.58 Base Rate -each public school shall be assessed a $ 14.03 $ 14.73 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 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 User Charge -based on 100% of all water consumed $ 3.35 $ 3,58 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.88 $ 4.14 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.42 $ 8.84 For Information Purposes Only: Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (CCMA), Per 1,000 gallons $ 3.35 $ 3.58 includes 5% franchise fee 36 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Sewer Rates - SARA Customers 2016 -17 2017 -18 Residential Rates (Single Family) Base Rate -per month $ 12.97 DELETE Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month User Charge based on 100% of avg consumption mo. $ 4.98 DELETE User avg. based on Nov, Dec, and Jan, min. 500 gals. All Other Customers Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month User Charge -based on 100% of water consumed $ 7.79 DELETE 37 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Water Impact Fees 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 LUEs Meter Size Meter Type Water 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 SEWER COLLECTION IMPACT FEE *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 $ 1,800.00 Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) Example by meter size: 5/8" Simple $ 1,306.00 $ 1,306.00 38 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 5/8 IN 0 $ 23.19 $ 23.89 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 28.09 $ 28.94 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 1 6,000 $ 40.35 $ 41.59 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 62.47 $ 64.40 $ 5.80 $ 5.98 9,000 $ 49.08 $ 50.59 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 79.87 $ 82.34 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 12,000 $ 58.53 $ 60.31 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 98.83 $ 101.84 $ 6.80 $ 5.98 15,000 $ 68.73 $ 70.81 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 119.23 $ 122.78 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 79.53 $ 81.94 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 140.83 $ 144.92 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 30,000 $ 133.89 $ 137.98 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 249.55 $ 255.81 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 211.14 $ 217.48 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 404.20 $ 413.16 $ 10.97 $ '11.15 60,000 $ 293.34 $ 302.08 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 568.75 $ 580.42 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 75,000+ $ 378.54 $ 389.83 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 739.00 $ 753.37 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 3/41N 0 $ 34.78 $ 35.82 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 42.12 $ 46.76 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 2 6,000 $ 51.94 $ 53.52 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 76.50 $ 82.22 $ 5.80 $ 5.98 9,000 $ 60.67 $ 62.52 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 93.90 $ 100.15 $ 6.32 $ 6.501 12,000 $ 70.12 $ 72.24 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 112.86 $ 119,66 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 15,000 $ 80.32 $ 82.74 $ 3.60 $ 3. °71 $ 133.26 $ '140,60 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 91.12 $ 93.87 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 154.86 $ 162.74 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 30,000 $ 145.48 $ 149.91 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 263.58 $ 273.63 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 222.73 $ 229,41 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 418.23 $ 430,98 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 60,000 $ 304.93 $ 314.01 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 582.78 $ 598.24 $ 11.35 $ "11.53 75,000+ $ 390.13 $ 401.76 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 753.03 $ 771.19 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 1.0 IN 0 $ 57.96 $ 59.70 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 70.21 $ 77.9:3 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 3 6,000 $ 75.12 $ 77.40 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 104.59 $ 113.39 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 9,000 $ 83.85 $ 86.40 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 121.99 $ 131.33 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 12,000 $ 93.30 $ 96.12 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 140.95 $ 150,83 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 15,000 $ 103.50 $ 106.62 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 161.35 $ 171.78 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 114.30 $ 117.75 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 182.95 $ 19192 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 30,000 $ 168.66 $ 173.79 $ 5.15 $ 5.130 $ 291.67 $ 304.80 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 245.91 $ 253.29 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 446.32 $ 462.15 $ 10.97 $ '11.15 60,000 $ 328.11 $ 337.89 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 610.87 $ 629.41 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 75,000+ $ 413.31 $ 425.64 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 781.12 $ 802.36 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 0 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 11/2 IN 0 $ 128.68 $ 142,84 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 140.40 $ 155,85 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 CODE 15,000 $ 172.93 $ 187,09 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 22635 $ 244,50 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 30,000 $ 217.93 $ 232,09 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 313.35 $ 334,21 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 45,000 $ 266.53 $ 280,69 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 408.15 $ 431,71 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 60,000 $ 319.03 $ 333,19 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 510.15 $ 536,42 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 75,000 $ 374.68 $ 388,84 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 618.15 $ 647,12 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 100,000 $ 491.43 $ 505,59 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 844.65 $ 878,13 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 125,000 $ 623.93 $ 638,09 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 1,102.40 $ 1,140,39 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 150,000 $ 764.93 $ 779,09 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 1,376.65 $ 1,419,15 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 175,000+ $ 911.18 $ 925,34 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 1,660.40 $ 1,707,40 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 21N 0 $ 205.88 $ 228,53 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 224.65 $ 24936 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 SIMPLE 24,000 $ 276.68 $ 299,33 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 362.17 $ 391,21 $ 5.80 $ 598 COMPOUND 48,000 $ 348.68 $ 371,33 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 501.37 $ 534,74 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 CODE 72,000 $ 426.44 $ 449,09 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 653.05 $ 690.75 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 96,000 $ 510.44 $ 533,09 $ 3.60 $ 3. °71 $ 816.25 $ 858,27 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 120,000 $ 599.48 $ 622.13 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 989.05 $ 1,035.40 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 160000 $ 786.28 $ 808,93 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 1,351.45 $ 1,405,02 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 200,000 $ 998.28 $ 1,020,93 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 1,763.85 $ 1,824,63 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 240,000 $ 1,223.88 $ 1,246,53 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 2,202.65 $ 2,270,64 $ 11.35 $ '11,53 280,000+ $ 1,457.88 $ 1,480,53 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 2,656.65 $ 2,731,85 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 21N 0 $ 257.35 $ 285,66 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 280.82 $ 311,71 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 30,000 $ 345.85 $ 374.16 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 452.72 $ 489.02 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 60,000 $ 435.85 $ 464,16 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 626.72 $ 668,43 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 90,000 $ 533.05 $ 561,36 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 81632 $ 863.44 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 120,000 $ 638.05 $ 666,36 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 1,020.32 $ 1,072,85 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 150,000 $ 749.35 $ 777.66 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 1,236.32 $ 1,294,26 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 200,000 $ 982.85 $ 1,01 1,16 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 1,689.32 $ 1,756,27 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 250,000 $ 1,247.85 $ 1,276.16 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 2,204.82 $ 2,280.79 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 300,000 $ 1,529.85 $ 1,558,16 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 2,753.32 $ 2,838,30 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 350,000+ $ 1,822.35 $ '1,850,66 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 3,320.82 $ 3,414.82 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 40 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 3 I 0 $ 411.77 $ 457.06 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 44931 $ 498.73 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 COMPOUND 48,000 $ 553.37 $ 588.66 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 724.35 $ 783.42 $ 5.80 $ 5.98 CODE 7 96,000 $ 697.37 $ 742.66 $ 3.15 $ 3.34 $ 1,002.75 $ 1,069.48 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 144,000 $ 852.89 $ 898.18 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 1,306.11 $ 1,381.49 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 192,000 $ 1,020.89 $ 1,066.18 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 1,632.51 $ 1,716.55 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 240,000 $ 1,198.97 $ 1,244.26 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 1,978.11 $ 9,070.80 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 320,000 $ 1,572.57 $ 1,617.86 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 2,702.91 $ 2,810,03 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 400,000 $ 1,996.57 $ 2,041.86 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 3,527.71 $ 3,649.26 $ 10.97 $ '11.15 480,000 $ 2,447.77 $ 2,493.06 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 4,405.31 $ 4,541.28 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 560,000+ $ 2,915.77 $ 2,961.06 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 5,313.31 $ 5,463,71 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 3 IN 0 $ 617.65 $ 685,59 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 673.96 $ 748.09 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 TURBINE 72,000 $ 830.05 $ 897.99 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 1,086.52 $ 1,173.64 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 8 144,000 $ 1,046.05 $ 1,113.99 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 1,504.12 $ 1,604,22 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 216,000 $ 1,279.33 $ 1,347.27 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 1,959.16 $ 2,07214 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 288,000 $ 1,531.33 $ 1,599.27 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 2,448.76 $ 2,574.132 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 408,000 $ 1,976.53 $ 2,044.47 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 3,312.76 $ 3,460.46 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 528,000 $ 2,536.93 $ 2,604.87 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 4,399.96 $ 4,569,30 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 648,000 $ 3,172.93 $ 3,240,87 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 5,637.16 $ 5,828.14 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 768,000 $ 3,849.73 $ 3,917.67 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 6,953.56 $ 7,166.18 $ 11.35 $ "11.53 888,000+ $ 4,551.73 $ 4,619.67 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 8,315.56 $ 8,549,81 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 41N 0 $ 643.39 $ 714.16 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 702.04 $ 779.27 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 COMPOUND 75,000 $ 864.64 $ 935.41 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 1,131.79 $ 1,222.54 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 9 150,000 $ 1,089.64 $ 1,160.41 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 1,566.79 $ 1,671.06 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 225,000 $ 1,332.64 $ 1,403,41 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 2,040.79 $ 2,158.59 $ 6.80 $ &3.98 300,000 $ 1,595.14 $ 1,665.91 $ 3.60 $ 3. 71 $ 2,550.79 $ 2,682.11 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 425,000 $ 2,058.89 $ 7,129.66 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 3,450.79 $ 3,604.65 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 550,000 $ 2,642.64 $ 2,713.41 $ 5.15 $ 5.130 $ 4,583.29 $ 4,759.69 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 675,000 $ 3,305.14 $ 3,375,91 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 5,872.04 $ 6,070.98 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 800,000 $ 4,010.14 $ 4 ,080.91 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 7,243.29 $ 7,464.77 $ 11.35 $ "11.53 925,000+ $ 4,741.39 $ 4,812.16 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 8,662.04 $ 8,9076.06 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 41 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 1 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY I I OUTSIDE CITY I METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 4 IN 0 $ 1,080.90 $ 1,199,80 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 1,179.42 $ 1,309,16 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 126,000 $ 1,452.60 $ 1,571,50 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 1,901.40 $ 2,053,86 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 10 252,000 $ 1,830.60 $ 1,949,50 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 2,632.20 $ 2,807,37 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 378,000 $ 2,238.84 $ 2,357,74 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 3,428.52 $ 3,626,41 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 504,000 $ 2,679.84 $ 2,798,74 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 4,285.32 $ 4,505,93 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 630,000 $ 3,147.30 $ 3,266,20 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 5,192.52 $ 5,435,85 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 840,000 $ 4,128.00 $ 4,246,90 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 7,095.12 $ 7,376,32 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 1,050,000 $ 5,241.00 $ 5,359,90 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 9,260.22 $ 9,579,29 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 1,260,000 $ 6,425.40 $ 6,544,30 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 11,563.92 $ 11,920,85 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 1,470,000+ $ 7,653.90 $ 7,772,80 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 13,947.42 $ 14,342,22 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 61N 0 $ 1,286.78 $ 1,428.33 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 1,404.08 $ 1,55&53 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 COMPOUND 150,000 $ 1,729.28 $ 1,870.83 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 2,263.58 $ 2,445,08 $ 5.80 $ 598 CODE 11 300,000 $ 2,179.28 $ 2,320,83 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 3,133.58 $ 3,342,13 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 450,000 $ 2,665.28 $ 2,806,83 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 4,081.58 $ 4,317.17 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 600,000 $ 3,190.28 $ 3,331,83 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 5,101.58 $ 5,364,22 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 750,000 $ 3,746.78 $ 3,888,33 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 6,181 .58 $ 6,471,27 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,000,000 $ 4,914.28 $ 5,055,83 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 8,446.58 $ 8,781,35 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 1,250,000 $ 6,239.28 $ 6,380,83 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 11,024.08 $ 11,403,93 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 1,500,000 $ 7,649.28 $ 7,790,83 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 13,766.58 $ 14,"191.50 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 1,750,000+ $ 9,111.78 $ 9,253,33 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 16,604.08 $ 17,074,08 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 61N 0 $ 2,367.66 $ 2,628,11 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 2,583.51 $ 2,58151 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 276,000 $ 3,181.86 $ 3,44231 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 4,164.99 $ 4,214,76 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 12 552,000 $ 4,009.86 $ 4,270,31 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 5,765.79 $ 5,865,32 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 828,000 $ 4,904.10 $ 5,164,55 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 7,510.11 $ 7,659,41 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 1,104,000 $ 5,870.10 $ 6,130,55 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 9,386.91 $ 9,585,98 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 1,380,000 $ 6,894.06 $ 7,154.51 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 11,374.11 $ 11,622.94 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,840,000 $ 9,042.26 $ 9,302,71 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 15,541.71 $ 15,873,49 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 2,300,000 $ 11,480.26 $ 11 ,740,71 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 20,284.31 $ 20,699,03 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 2,760,000 $ 14,074.66 $ 14,335,11 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 25,330.51 $ 25,828,18 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 3,220,000+ $ 16,765.66 $ 17,028.11 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 30,551.51 $ 31,132A2 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 42 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 1 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY I I OUTSIDE CITY I METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 8 IN 0 $ 2,079.74 $ 2,308,51 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 2,269.09 $ 2,269,09 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 240,000 $ 2,787.74 $ 3,016,51 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 3,644.29 $ 3,687,57 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 13 480,000 $ 3,507.74 $ 3,736,51 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 5,036.29 $ 5,122,84 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 720,000 $ 4,285.34 $ 4,514,11 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 6,553.09 $ 6,682,92 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 960,000 $ 5,125.34 $ 5,354,11 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 8,185.09 $ 8,358,19 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 1,200,000 $ 6,015.74 $ 6,244,51 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 9,913.09 $ 10,129,47 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,600,000 $ 7,883.74 $ 8,112,51 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 13,537.09 $ 13,825,59 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 2,000,000 $ 10,003.74 $ 10,232,51 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 17,661.09 $ 18,021,72 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 2,400,000 $ 12,259.74 $ 12,488,51 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 22,049.09 $ 22,481,85 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 2,800,000+ $ 14,599.74 $ 14,828,51 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 26,589.09 $ 27,093,97 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 81N 0 $ 4,159.47 $ 4,617,01 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 4,538.17 $ 5,037.37 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 TURBINE 480,000 $ 5,575.47 $ 6,033,01 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 7,288.57 $ 77874.32 $ 5.80 $ 5.98 CODE 14 960,000 $ 7,015.47 $ 7,473,01 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 10,072.57 $ 10,744,87 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 1,440,000 $ 8,570.67 $ 9,028,21 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 13,106.17 $ 13,865,02 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 1,920,000 $ 10,250.67 $ 10,708,21 $ 3.60 $ 3. °71 $ 16,370.17 $ 17,215,57 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 2,400,000 $ 12,031.47 $ 12,489.01 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 19,826.17 $ 20,758,12 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 3,200,000 $ 15,767.47 $ 16,225,01 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 27,074.17 $ 28,150,37 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 4,000,000 $ 20,007.47 $ 20,465 01 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 35,322.17 $ 36,542.63 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 4,800,000 $ 24,519.47 $ 24,977,01 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 44,098.17 $ 45,462,88 $ 11.35 $ '11,53 5,600,000+ $ 31,539.47 $ 31,997.01 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 57,718.17 $ 59,299,26 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 101N 0 $ 2,989.62 $ 3,318A7 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 3,261.81 $ 3,620,61 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 345,000 $ 4,007.37 $ 4,336,22 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 5,238.66 $ 5,659,67 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 15 690,000 $ 5,042.37 $ 5,37122 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 7,239.66 $ 7,722.88 $ 6.32 $ 650 1,035,000 $ 6,160.17 $ 6,489,02 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 9,420.06 $ 9,965,49 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 1,380,000 $ 7,367.67 $ 7,696,52 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 11,766.06 $ 12,373.70 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 1,725,000 $ 8,647.62 $ 8,976,47 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 14,250.06 $ 14,919,90 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 2,300,000 $ 11,332.87 $ 11,661 .72 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 19,459.56 $ 20,233,09 $ 10.31 $ 1049 2,875,000 $ 14,380.37 $ 14,709,22 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 25,387.81 $ 26,265,02 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 3,450,000 $ 17,623.37 $ 17,952,22 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 31,695.56 $ 32,676,45 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 4,025,000+ $ 20,987.12 $ 21,315,97 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 38,221.81 $ 39,306,38 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 43 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 10 IN 0 $ 5,855.10 $ 6,499,16 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 6,770.05 $ 6,770,05 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 750,000 $ 8,000.10 $ 8,711,66 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 11,067.55 $ 11,202,79 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 16 1,500,000 $ 10,182.60 $ 10,961,66 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 15,417.55 $ 15,688,02 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 2,250,000 $ 12,545.10 $ 13,391,66 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 20,157.55 $ 20,563,26 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 3,000,000 $ 15,095.10 $ 16,016,66 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 25,257.55 $ 25,798,49 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 3,750,000 $ 17,795.10 $ 18,799,16 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 30,657.55 $ 31,333,73 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 5,000,000 $ 23,457.60 $ 24,636,66 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 41,982.55 $ 42,884,12 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 6,250,000 $ 29,895.10 $ 31,261,66 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 54,870.05 $ 55,997,02 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 7,500,000 $ 36,745.10 $ 38,311,66 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 68,582.55 $ 69,934,91 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 8,750,000+ $ 43,845.10 $ 45,624,16 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 82,770.05 $ 84,347,80 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 12 IN 0 $ 8,578.90 $ 9,522,58 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 9,359.97 $ 9,359,97 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 990,000 $ 11,499.40 $ 12,443,08 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 15,032.67 $ 15,211,18 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 17 1,980,000 $ 14,469.40 $ 15,413.08 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 20,774.67 $ 21,131,69 $ 6.32 $ 650 2,970,000 $ 17,677.00 $ 18,620,68 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 27,031.47 $ 27,567,00 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 3,960,000 $ 21,142.00 $ 22,08568 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 33,76147 $ 34,477.52 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 4,950,000 $ 24,814.90 $ 25,758,58 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 40,891.47 $ 41,784,03 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 6,600,000 $ 32,520.40 $ 33,464.08 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 55,840.47 $ 57,030,55 $ 10.31 $ 1049 8,250,000 $ 41,265.40 $ 42,209,08 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 72,851.97 $ 74,339,57 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 9,900,000 $ 50,571.40 $ 51 ,515 08 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 90,952.47 $ 92,737,59 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 11,550,000+ $ 60,223.90 $ 61,167,58 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 109,679.97 $ 111,762,60 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 CURRENT RATE 1000 RATE 1000 FH METER 110.18 122,30 7.63 8.47 Cibolo Wholesale Water Rate 3.27 3.27 44 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees (Drought Contingency Surcharges 1 2016 -171 2017 -18� 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 45 City of Schert2 r Proposed Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes Effective October 1St, 2017 Garbage Rates Effective January 1St, 2018 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes 2016-171 2017 -18 Library Max overdue amount per ILL item N/A $ 5.00 Replacement Library Card $ 5.00 $ 1.00 Damaged or Missing DVD /Video Cover $ 1.00 $ 100 Materials Recovery Fee N/A $ 10.00 Animal Adoption Cat or Dog that has been spayed or neutered regardless of weight $ 65.00 $ 65.00 Cat, a'nale $ 50.00 $ 90.00 Cat, female $ 11150 $ 11150 Dog, male under 60 lbs. $ 131.50 $ 131.50 Dog, r'nale 60 ft. and over $ 140.00 $ 140.00 Dog, female under 30 lbs. $ 137.00 $ 137.00 Dog, female between 30 and 60 lbs. $ 142.50 $ 142.50 Dog, female 61 ibs, and over $ 159.00 $ 159.00 Magazine Non - Profit Rates for Display Ads: Quarter Page for 1 mo., per month $ 550 $ DELETE Quarter Page for 3 mo., per month $ 300 $ DELETE Quarter Page for 6 mo., per month $ 250 $ DELETE Half Page for 1 mo., per month $ 775 $ DELETE Half Page for 3 mo., per month $ 550 DELETE Half Page for 6 mo., per month $ 375 DELETE Full Page for 1 mo., per month $ 1,100 $ DELETE Full Page for 3 mo., per month $ 900 $ DELETE Full Page for 6 mo., per month $ 700 $ DELETE ** We are doing away with individual prices for non - profit rates. Rather, non - profits w ll receive 25% off of the normal rate for the contractual length of agreement. Event Facilities $ 900.00 DELETE Vendor /Ancillary Fees Portable Par (includes 5 cocktail tables) N/A $ 200.00 Discount/Special Rates H.C.A. Meeting lee N/A $ 75.003 Funeral Reception Only in DDH /CCC 3 hr maArnurn N/A $ 75.00 Quality of Life Events ( CCC & North Center, Only) N/A $ 15.00 Civic Center - Grand Ballroom- (7,198 sq. ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 700.00 $ 800.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 500.00 $ 600.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 Large Stage $ 200.00 $ 400.00 Banquet Package - includes hall rental,easel, tables /chairs, dance floor, AV panel access, ice, Gathering Room, Portable Bar, cocktail tables, kitchen: Sunday, Full day $ 1,200.00 $ 1,500.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 1,000.00 $ 1,300.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 2,100.00 $ 2,500,00 Conference package - includes hall rental, easel, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday, Full day $ 900.00 DELETE W City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 Sunday, Half day $ 650.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 700.00 DELETE Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 575.00 DELETE Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,800.00 DELETE City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes 1 2016 -171 2017 -181 Civic Center Cut -Off Hall (Larger portion of Ballroom - (4,172 sq ft) $ 300.00 325.00 Regular Rentals $ 325.00 375.00 Sunday, Full day $ 500.00 500.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 325.00 425,00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,200.00 1,400.00 Large Stage $ 200.00 400.00 Banquet Package - includes hall rental,easel, tables /chairs, dance floor, AV panel $ 300.00 DELETE access, ice, Gathering Room, Portable Bar /cocktail tables, Kitchen Fee: $ 325.00 DELETE Sunday, Full day $ 1,000.00 1,300.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 825.00 1,125.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 1,700.00 2,100.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday - Full day $ 700.00 DELETE Sunday - Half day $ 525.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per day $ 525.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per half day $ 450.00 DELETE. Friday through Saturday, per day (half day not available) $ 1,500.00 DELETE 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 DELETE E Sunday - Half day $ 450.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per day $ 450.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per half day $ 375.00 DELETE Civic Center - Bluebonnet Hall- (2,500 sq ft) Regular Rentals Sunday, Full day $ 300.00 $ 400°00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 225.00 250.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 575.00 500.00 Banquet Package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, AV panel access, ice, kitchen: Sunday, Full day $ 400.00 525.00 Sunday, Half day $ 300.00 325.00 Monday - Thursday, Full day $ 325.00 375.00 Monday - Thursday, Half day $ 225.00 250.00 Friday - Saturday, Full day (half day not available) $ 675.00 725.00 Conference package - includes hall rental, tables /chairs, access AV, kitchen, ice: Sunday - Full day $ 400.00 DELETE Sunday - Half day $ 300.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per day $ 325.00 DELETE Monday through Thursday - per half day $ 225.00 DELETE Friday through Saturday, per day (half day not available) $ 600.00 DELETE Community Center Central Stage $ 100.00 DELETE 3 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes 1 2016 -171 $ 2017 -181 City Events N/A $ 103.55 Jubilee N/A $ 1,000.33 Food Vendor N/A $ 500.00 Beverage Vendor N/A $ 1300.00 Cooler Booth Rental /A $ 1,500,00 Carnival NIA $ 5,000.30 Craft Vendor N/A $ 50.00 Business Vendor N/A $ 200.00 Parade Entry N/A $ 135.00 SchertzQ Food Truck Vendor N/A $ 200,00 Beverage Vendor N/A $ 103.55 Cooler Booth Rental N/A $ 1,000.33 Jackpot Beans /A $ 25.00 BBQ Entry N/A $ 200.00 Cooks Choice N/A $ 25.00 Retail /Craft /A $ 100,00 Business Vendor N/A $ 200.00 Ice N/A $ 100 Kids Q N/A $ 25.00 Festival of Angels Food Vendor /A $ 50.00 Craft Vendor /A $ 50,00 Parade Entry N/A $ 15.00 Police BODY CAM VIDEO ($1.00 per minute +$10.00) N/A $ '10.00 Fire Removing Hazardous materials operations service fees. /A Removin0 The current replacement cost shall be charged for the use of consumable haz -mat supplies and firefighting agents /A Cost If any protective equipment or firefighting equipment is damaged or contaminated, the current replacement cost shall be charged. N/A Cost Personnel cost will be calculated at the rate for the responding crew members. N/A Cost EMS EMT Class $ 1,000.00 $ 1,100,00 Per Capita $ 14.03 $ 14.45 4 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Summary of Changes 1 2016 -171 $ 312.00 2017 -181 Public Works $ 395.00 $ 460.00 $ 656.00 Meter Installation Fees - Inside the City 390.00 $ 1,832.00 $ 17950.00 Meter Size 5/8" X 3/4" $ 275.00 $ 330.00 3/4" X 3/4" $ 302.00 $ 345.00 ill X ill $ 385.00 $ 450.00 1.5" X 1/5" $ 646.00 $ 330.00 2" X 2" $ 1,822.00 $ 1,940,00 Meter Installation Fees - Outside the City Meter Size 5/8" X 3/4" 3/4" X 3/4" 1„ X 1" 1.5" X 1/5" 2" X 2" $ 285.00 $ 340.00 $ 312.00 $ 355.00 $ 395.00 $ 460.00 $ 656.00 $ 390.00 $ 1,832.00 $ 17950.00 61 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 5/8 IN 0 $ 23.19 $ 23.89 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 28.09 $ 28.94 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 1 6,000 $ 40.35 $ 41.59 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 62.47 $ 64.40 $ 5.80 $ 5.98 9,000 $ 49.08 $ 50.59 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 79.87 $ 82.34 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 12,000 $ 58.53 $ 617.31 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 98.83 $ 101.84 $ 6.80 $ 5.98 15,000 $ 68.73 $ 70.81 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 119.23 $ 122.78 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 79.53 $ 81.94 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 140.83 $ 144.92 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 30,000 $ 133.89 $ 137.98 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 249.55 $ 255.81 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 211.14 $ 217.48 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 404.20 $ 413.16 $ 10.97 $ '11.15 60,000 $ 293.34 $ 302.08 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 568.75 $ 580,42 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 75,000+ $ 378.54 $ 7389.83 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 739.00 $ 753.37 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 3/41N 0 $ 34.78 $ 35.82 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 42.12 $ 46.76 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 2 6,000 $ 51.94 $ 53.52 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 76.50 $ 82.22 $ 5.80 °$ 5.98 9,000 $ 60.67 $ 62.52 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 93.90 $ 100.16 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 12,000 $ 70.12 $ 72,24 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 112.86 $ 119,66 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 15,000 $ 80.32 $ 82.74 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 133.26 $ `140,60 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 91.12 $ 93.87 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 154.86 $ 162.74 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 30,000 $ 145.48 $ 149.91 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 263.58 $ 273.63 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 222.73 $ 229.41 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 418.23 $ 430,98 $ 10.97 $ °11.15 60,000 $ 304.93 $ 314.01 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 582.78 $ 598.24 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 75,000+ $ 390.13 $ 401.76 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 753.03 $ 771.19 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 1.0 IN 0 $ 57.96 $ 59.70 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 70.21 $ 77.93 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 CODE 3 6,000 $ 75.12 $ 77.40 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 104.59 $ 113.39 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 9,000 $ 83.85 $ 86.40 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 121.99 $ 131.33 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 12,000 $ 93.30 $ 96..12 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 140.95 $ 1:50.83 $ 6.80 $ &3.98 15,000 $ 103.50 $ 106.62 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 161.35 $ 171,78 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 18,000 $ 114.30 $ 117 °75 $ 4.53 $ 4.57 $ 182.95 $ 193,92 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 30,000 $ 168.66 $ 173.79 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 291.67 $ 304.80 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 45,000 $ 245.91 $ 253,29 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 446.32 $ 462.15 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 60,000 $ 328.11 $ 337.89 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 610.87 $ 629.41 $ 11.35 $ "11.53 75,000+ $ 413.31 $ 425.64 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 781.12 $ 802.36 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 C1 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 11/2 IN 0 $ 128.68 $ 142,84 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 140.40 $ 155,85 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 CODE 15,000 $ 172.93 $ 187,09 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 22635 $ 244,50 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 30,000 $ 217.93 $ 232,09 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 313.35 $ 334,21 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 45,000 $ 266.53 $ 280,69 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 408.15 $ 431,71 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 60,000 $ 319.03 $ 333,19 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 510.15 $ 536,42 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 75,000 $ 374.68 $ 388,84 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 618.15 $ 647,12 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 100,000 $ 491.43 $ 505,59 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 844.65 $ 878,13 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 125,000 $ 623.93 $ 638,09 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 1,102.40 $ 1,140,39 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 150,000 $ 764.93 $ 779,09 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 1,376.65 $ 1,419,15 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 175,000+ $ 911.18 $ 925,34 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 1,660.40 $ 1,707,40 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 21N 0 $ 205.88 $ 228,53 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 224.65 $ 24936 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 SIMPLE 24,000 $ 276.68 $ 299,33 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 362.17 $ 391,21 $ 5.80 $ 598 COMPOUND 48,000 $ 348.68 $ 371,33 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 501.37 $ 534,74 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 CODE 72,000 $ 426.44 $ 44909 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 653.05 $ 690.75 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 96,000 $ 510.44 $ 533,09 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 816.25 $ 858,27 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 120,000 $ 599.48 $ 622.13 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 989.05 $ 1,035.40 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 160000 $ 786.28 $ 808,93 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 1,351.45 $ 1,405,02 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 200,000 $ 998.28 $ 1,02093 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 1,763.85 $ 1,824.63 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 240,000 $ 1,223.88 $ 1,246,53 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 2,202.65 $ 2,270,64 $ 11.35 $ '11,53 280,000+ $ 1,457.88 $ 1,480.53 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 2,656.65 $ 2,731,85 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 21N 0 $ 257.35 $ 285,66 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 280.82 $ 311,71 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 30,000 $ 345.85 $ 374.16 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 452.72 $ 489.02 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 60,000 $ 435.85 $ 464,16 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 626.72 $ 668,43 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 90,000 $ 533.05 $ 561,36 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 81632 $ 863.44 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 120,000 $ 638.05 $ 666,36 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 1,020.32 $ 1,072,85 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 150,000 $ 749.35 $ 777.66 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 1,236.32 $ 1,294.26 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 200,000 $ 982.85 $ 1,011,16 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 1,689.32 $ 1,756,27 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 250,000 $ 1,247.85 $ 1,276.16 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 2,204.82 $ 2,280.79 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 300,000 $ 1,529.85 $ 1,558,16 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 2,753.32 $ 2,838,30 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 350,000+ $ 1,822.35 $ '1,850.66 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 3,320.82 $ 3,414,82 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 VA City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 3 IN 0 $ 411.77 $ 457,06 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 44931 $ 498,73 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 48,000 $ 553.37 $ 598,66 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 724.35 $ 782,42 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 96,000 $ 697.37 $ 742,66 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 1,002.75 $ 1,069,48 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 144,000 $ 852.89 $ 898,18 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 1,306.11 $ 1,381,49 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 192,000 $ 1,020.89 $ 1,066,18 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 1,632.51 $ 1,716,55 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 240,000 $ 1,198.97 $ 1,244,26 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 1,978.11 $ 2,070,80 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 320,000 $ 1,572.57 $ 1,617,86 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 2,702.91 $ 2,810,03 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 400,000 $ 1,996.57 $ 2,041,86 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 3,527.71 $ 3,649,26 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 480,000 $ 2,447.77 $ 2,493,06 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 4,405.31 $ 4,541,28 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 560,000+ $ 2,915.77 $ 2,961,06 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 5,313.31 $ 5,463,71 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 3 IN 0 $ 617.65 $ 685,59 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 673.96 $ 748.09 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 TURBINE 72,000 $ 830.05 $ 897.99 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 1,086.52 $ 1,173.64 $ 5.80 $ 598 CODE 144,000 $ 1,046.05 $ 1,113,99 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 1,504.12 $ 1,604,22 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 216,000 $ 1,279.33 $ 1,347,27 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 1,959.16 $ 2,072.24 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 288,000 $ 1,531.33 $ 1,599,27 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 2,448.76 $ 2,574,82 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 408,000 $ 1,976.53 $ 2,044,47 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 3,312.76 $ 3,460.46 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 528,000 $ 2,536.93 $ 2,604,87 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 4,399.96 $ 4,569,30 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 648,000 $ 3,172.93 $ 3,240,87 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 5,637.16 $ 5,828,14 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 768,000 $ 3,849.73 $ 3,917,67 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 6,953.56 $ 7,°166. "18 $ 11.35 $ '11,53 888,000+ $ 4,551.73 $ 4,619,67 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 8,315.56 $ 8,549,81 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 41N 0 $ 643.39 $ 714,16 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 702.04 $ 779,27 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 75,000 $ 864.64 $ 935.41 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 1,131.79 $ 1,222,54 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 150,000 $ 1,089.64 $ 1,160,41 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 1,566.79 $ 1,671,06 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 225,000 $ 1,332.64 $ 1,403,41 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 2,040.79 $ 2,158.59 $ 6.80 $ &98 300,000 $ 1,595.14 $ 1,665,91 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 2,550.79 $ 2,682,11 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 425,000 $ 2,058.89 $ 2,129.66 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 3,450.79 $ 3,604.65 $ 9.06 $ 9.24 550,000 $ 2,642.64 $ 2,713,41 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 4,583.29 $ 4,759,69 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 675,000 $ 3,305.14 $ 3,375 91 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 5,872.04 $ 6,070,98 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 800,000 $ 4,010.14 $ 4,080,91 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 7,243.29 $ 7,464,77 $ 11.35 $ '11,53 925,000+ $ 4,741.39 $ 4,812.16 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 8,662.04 $ 8,906,06 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 8 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 1 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY I I OUTSIDE CITY I METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 4 IN 0 $ 1,080.90 $ 1,199,80 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 1,179.42 $ 1,309,16 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 126,000 $ 1,452.60 $ 1,571,50 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 1,901.40 $ 2,053,86 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 10 252,000 $ 1,830.60 $ 1,949,50 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 2,632.20 $ 2,807,37 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 378,000 $ 2,238.84 $ 2,357,74 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 3,428.52 $ 3,626,41 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 504,000 $ 2,679.84 $ 2,798,74 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 4,285.32 $ 4,505,93 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 630,000 $ 3,147.30 $ 3,266,20 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 5,192.52 $ 5,435,85 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 840,000 $ 4,128.00 $ 4,246,90 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 7,095.12 $ 7,376,32 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 1,050,000 $ 5,241.00 $ 5,359,90 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 9,260.22 $ 9,579,29 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 1,260,000 $ 6,425.40 $ 6,544,30 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 11,563.92 $ 11,920,85 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 1,470,000+ $ 7,653.90 $ 7,772,80 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 13,947.42 $ 14,342,22 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 61N 0 $ 1,286.78 $ '1,428,33 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 1,404.08 $ 1,558.53 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 COMPOUND 150,000 $ 1,729.28 $ 1,870,83 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 2,263.58 $ 2,445,08 $ 5.80 $ 598 CODE 11 300,000 $ 2,179.28 $ 2,320,83 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 3,133.58 $ 3,342,13 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 450,000 $ 2,665.28 $ 2,806,83 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 4,081.58 $ 4,317,17 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 600,000 $ 3,190.28 $ 3,331,83 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 5,101.58 $ 5,364,22 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 750,000 $ 3,746.78 $ 3,888,33 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 6,181 .58 $ 6,471,27 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,000,000 $ 4,914.28 $ 5,055,83 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 8,446.58 $ 8,781,35 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 1,250,000 $ 6,239.28 $ 6,380,83 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 11,024.08 $ 11,403,93 $ 10.97 $ 11.15 1,500,000 $ 7,649.28 $ 7,790,83 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 13,766.58 $ 14,191,50 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 1,750,000+ $ 9,111.78 $ 9,253,33 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 16,604.08 $ 17,074,08 $ 11.60 $ 11.78 61N 0 $ 2,367.66 $ 2,628,11 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 2,583.51 $ 2,583,51 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 276,000 $ 3,181.86 $ 3,44231 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 4,164.99 $ 4,214,76 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 12 552,000 $ 4,009.86 $ 4,270,31 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 5,765.79 $ 5,865,32 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 828,000 $ 4,904.10 $ 5,164.55 $ 3.40 $ 3.50 $ 7,510.11 $ 7,659,41 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 1,104,000 $ 5,870.10 $ 6,130,55 $ 3.60 $ 3,11 $ 9,386.91 $ 9,585,98 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 1,380,000 $ 6,894.06 $ 7,154.51 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 11,374.11 $ 11,622.94 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,840,000 $ 9,042.26 $ 9,302,71 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 15,541.71 $ 15,873,49 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 2,300,000 $ 11,480.26 $ 11,740,71 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 20,284.31 $ 20,699.03 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 2,760,000 $ 14,074.66 $ 14,335,11 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 25,330.51 $ 25,828,18 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 3,220,000+ $ 16,765.66 $ 17,020.11 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 30,551.51 $ 31,132,12 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 9 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 1 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY I I OUTSIDE CITY I METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 8 IN 0 $ 2,079.74 $ 2,308,51 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 2,269.09 $ 2,269,09 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 240,000 $ 2,787.74 $ 3,016,51 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 3,644.29 $ 3,687,57 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 13 480,000 $ 3,507.74 $ 3,736,51 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 5,036.29 $ 5,122,84 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 720,000 $ 4,285.34 $ 4,514,11 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 6,553.09 $ 6,682,92 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 960,000 $ 5,125.34 $ 5,354,11 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 8,185.09 $ 8,358,19 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 1,200,000 $ 6,015.74 $ 6,244,51 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 9,913.09 $ 10,129,47 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 1,600,000 $ 7,883.74 $ 8,112,51 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 13,537.09 $ 13,825,59 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 2,000,000 $ 10,003.74 $ 10,232,51 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 17,661.09 $ 18,021,72 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 2,400,000 $ 12,259.74 $ 12,488,51 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 22,049.09 $ 22,481,85 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 2,800,000+ $ 14,599.74 $ 14,828,51 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 26,589.09 $ 27,093,97 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 81N 0 $ 4,159.47 $ 4,61701 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 4,538.17 $ 5,03737 $ 5.73 $ 5.91 TURBINE 480,000 $ 5,575.47 $ 6,033,01 $ 2.91 $ 3.00 $ 7,288.57 $ 7,874,32 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 14 960,000 $ 7,015.47 $ 7,473,01 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 10,072.57 $ 10,744,87 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 1,440,000 $ 8,570.67 $ 9,02821 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 13,106.17 $ 13,865.02 $ 6.80 $ 6.98 1,920,000 $ 10,250.67 $ 10,708,21 $ 3.60 $ 3. °r1 $ 16,370.17 $ 17,215,57 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 2,400,000 $ 12,031.47 $ 12,489.01 $ 4.53 $ 4.67 $ 19,826.17 $ 207758.12 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 3,200,000 $ 15,767.47 $ 16,225,01 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 27,074.17 $ 28,150,37 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 4,000,000 $ 20,007.47 $ 20;465,01 $ 5.48 $ 5.64 $ 35,322.17 $ 36,542.63 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 4,800,000 $ 24,519.47 $ 24,977,01 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 44,098.17 $ 45,462,88 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 5,600,000+ $ 31,539.47 $ 31,997,01 $ 5.80 $ 5.97 $ 57,718.17 $ 59,299,26 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 101N 0 $ 2,989.62 $ 3,318,47 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 3,261.81 $ 3,620,61 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 COMPOUND 345,000 $ 4,007.37 $ 4,336,22 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 5,238.66 $ 5,659,67 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 15 690,000 $ 5,042.37 $ 5,371,22 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 7,239.66 $ 7,722.88 $ 6.32 $ 6.50 1,035,000 $ 6,160.17 $ 6,489,02 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 9,420.06 $ 9,965,49 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 1,380,000 $ 7,367.67 $ 7,696,52 $ 3.60 $ 3.71 $ 11,766.06 $ 12,373.70 $ 7.20 $ 738 1,725,000 $ 8,647.62 $ 8,976,47 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 14,250.06 $ 14,919,90 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 2,300,000 $ 11,332.87 $ 11,661 .72 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 19,459.56 $ 20,233,09 $ 10.31 $ 10,49 2,875,000 $ 14,380.37 $ 14,709,22 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 25,387.81 $ 26,265,02 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 3,450,000 $ 17,623.37 $ 17,952,22 $ 5.68 $ 5.85 $ 31,695.56 $ 32,676,45 $ 11.35 $ 11.53 4,025,000+ $ 20,987.12 $ 21,315,97 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 38,221.81 $ 39,306,38 $ 11.60 $ '11,78 01 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees jPublic Works - Water Rates 2017-181 GALLONS SOLD BY METER SIZE (RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL) I INSIDE CITY OUTSIDE CITY METER BLOCK CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW CURRENT NEW GALLONS BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 BLOCK RATE BLOCK RATE RATE 1000 RATE 1000 10 IN 0 $ 5,855.10 $ 6,499,16 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 6,770.05 $ 6,770,05 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 750,000 $ 8,000.10 $ 8,711,66 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 11,067.55 $ 11,202,79 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 16 1,500,000 $ 10,182.60 $ 10,961,66 $ 3.15 $ 3,24 $ 15,417.55 $ 15,688,02 $ 6.32 $ 6,50 2,250,000 $ 12,545.10 $ 13,391,66 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 20,157.55 $ 20,563,26 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 3,000,000 $ 15,095.10 $ 16,016,66 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 25,257.55 $ 25,798,49 $ 7.20 $ 7,38 3,750,000 $ 17,795.10 $ 18,799,16 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 30,657.55 $ 31,333,73 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 5,000,000 $ 23,457.60 $ 24,636,66 $ 5.15 $ 5,30 $ 41,982.55 $ 42,884,12 $ 10.31 $ 10.49 6,250,000 $ 29,895.10 $ 31,261,66 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 54,870.05 $ 55,997,02 $ 10.97 $ '11,15 7,500,000 $ 36,745.10 $ 38,311,66 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 68,582.55 $ 69,934,91 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 8,750,000+ $ 43,845.10 $ 45,624,16 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 82,770.05 $ 84,347,80 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 12 IN 0 $ 8,578.90 $ 9,522,58 $ 2.86 $ 2,95 $ 9,359.97 $ 9,359,97 $ 5.73 $ 5,91 TURBINE 990,000 $ 11,499.40 $ 12,443,08 $ 2.91 $ 3,00 $ 15,032.67 $ 15,211,18 $ 5.80 $ 5,98 CODE 17 1,980,000 $ 14,469.40 $ 15,413,08 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 20,774.67 $ 21,131,69 $ 6.32 $ 650 2,970,000 $ 17,677.00 $ 18,620,68 $ 3.40 $ 3,50 $ 27,031.47 $ 27,567,00 $ 6.80 $ 6,98 3,960,000 $ 21,142.00 $ 22,085,68 $ 3.60 $ 3,71 $ 33,76147 $ 34,477.52 $ 7.20 $ 7.38 4,950,000 $ 24,814.90 $ 25,758,58 $ 4.53 $ 4,67 $ 40,891.47 $ 41,784,03 $ 9.06 $ 9,24 6,600,000 $ 32,520.40 $ 33,464,08 $ 5.15 $ 5.30 $ 55,840.47 $ 57,030,55 $ 10.31 $ 1049 8,250,000 $ 41,265.40 $ 42,209,08 $ 5.48 $ 5,64 $ 72,851.97 $ 74,339,57 $ 10.97 $ 11,15 9,900,000 $ 50,571.40 $ 51,515,08 $ 5.68 $ 5,85 $ 90,952.47 $ 92,737.59 $ 11.35 $ 11,53 11,550,000+ $ 60,223.90 $ 61,167,58 $ 5.80 $ 5,97 $ 109,679.97 $ 111,762,60 $ 11.60 $ 11,78 CURRENT RATE 1000 RATE 1000 FH METER 110.18 122,30 7.63 8.47 Cibolo Wholesale Water Rate 3.27 3.27 IiE City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Public Works - Streets 1 2016 -171 $ 2017 -181 Chipping charges, per half hour $ 25.00 $ 40.00 Professional services, per month Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 $ 2017 -18 Light retail, wholesale, commercial Residential: Zone I: Once a week pick up One 96 gallon cart provided by franchisee, per month $ 12.05 $ 12.41 Residents requesets 2 carts total: $ 18.05 $ 13.50 Resident requests 3 carts total: $ 24.08 $ 24.30 Resident requests 4 carts total: $ 30.09 $ 3099 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2,05 Zone 2: Single Family, twice per week pick up, per month, no cart provided $ 12.05 $ 12,41 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2.05 Front Porch Pick Up $ 17.59 $ 13.11 Recycling Fee, per month /container $ 1.99 $ 2.05 Special Pickup: Move Ins, Special Tree Trimmings, oversize $ 16.79 $ 1729 materials, & similar circumstances; minimum Class II: Mobile Home Parks $ 9.61 $ 9.90 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 $ 9.61 $ 9.90 per unit/monthly Class IV: Motels $ 4.24 $ 4.37 per unit/monthly 2. Commercial Class V: $ 15.25 $ 15.70 Offices, barber shops and Professional services, per month Class VI: $ 26.30 $ 27,08 Light retail, wholesale, commercial or industrial, 2000 to 4000 square feet and excluding large grocery stores, etc., per month Class VII: $ 38.20 $ 39,34 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 $ 39.43 $ 40.61 `A City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 Class Vlll: 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 $ 67.87 $ 69.89 B. Two weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers, excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 135.73 $ 189.77 C. Three weekly pickups of 3 cu. Yard containers, excluding large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 212.09 $ 218.41 D. Four weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 254.47 $ 262.05 E. Five weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 339.31 $ 349,42 F. Six weekly pickups of 4 cu. Yard containers, including large grocery, furniture or department stores, etc., per month $ 424.20 $ 436.84 G. Customer requiring more than four (4) cu. Yds each pickup would be charged per cu. Yds. Collected., per yard $ 4.70 $ 4.84 13 City of Sobartz Schedule ofFees IGarbage Collection Fees 1 2016-171 2017-18 o. Commercial Containers' CONTRACTOR will provide commercial containers »o those customers who desire 0u use them inlieu of garbage cans. The use of such CONTRACTOR provided containers in required by this contract. Rates for containers and pickup will bebased nn the following table: of Container Size: Frequency Pickup 10 cu. Yard $ 10024 $ 305.35 $ 432.60 $ 542.94 $ 05318 $ 763.44 Commercial Recycle Hauling Permit $ 2.500,00 14 1 2 8 4 s 8 2 cu. Yard $ 58.45 $ 101,23 $ 122,28 $ 139,79 $ 157,26 $ 17472 3nu. Yard $ 71.65 $ 129,26 $ 178 23 $ 204,38 $ 230.63 $ 25&82 4 cu. Yard $ 88.06 $ 153,79 $ 20M5 $ 253,32 $ 397,04 $ 34071 O cu. Yard $ 125,84 $ 209,65 $ 288,30 $ 386.95 $ 445,48 $ 524.14 U cu. Yard $ 140M $ 270,81 $ 375.60 $ 480,46 $ 586,04 $ 690,14 1U cu. Yard $ 171,18 $ 314,45 $ 445,49 $ 55912 $ 672,64 $ 78619 1 2 3 4 s 8 2 cu. Yard $ 57.73 * 98.30 $ 118.74 $ 135.74 $ 152.71 $ 109.00 3 cu. Yard $ 08.58 $ 125.52 $ 173.07 $ 188.47 $ 223.90 $ 24938 4 cu. Yard $ 8048 * 149.34 $ 203.58 $ 245.99 $ 288.44 $ 330.85 G cu. Yard $ 12220 $ 203.58 $ 278.86 $ 356.33 $ 432.00 $ 508.97 D cu. Yard $ 144.23 $ 202.97 $ 30473 $ 460.50 $ 509.08 $ 070.17 10 cu. Yard $ 10024 $ 305.35 $ 432.60 $ 542.94 $ 05318 $ 763.44 Commercial Recycle Hauling Permit $ 2.500,00 14 City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Garbage Collection Fees 1 2016 -17 2017 -18 20 cu. Yard $ 313.85 $ 32120 30 cu. Yard $ 37122 $ 334,34 40 cu. Yard $ 432.60 $ 445,42 Roll -off Rental (no pulls within billing cycle) $ 129.78 $ 133.65 per container per month Collection and Disposal of Municipal Wastes $ 28.84 $ 5. Wet Material Rates on Compactor containers 3 cu yard $ 36.05 or open top containers with wet material must be 37.12 4 cu yard $ negotiated with customers at the time they are $ 44,56 6 cu yard needed. This type of waste must be hauled to a 50.48 $ 51,98 Type I landfill which generally has a higher $ 57.69 $ disposal rate attached to it. 10 cu yard $ 64.89 Roll -off Container Delivery Charge per container $ 37.82 $ 38,95 Roll -off Relocation or Trip Charge per container $ 37.82 $ 33.25 2 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week) $ 223.61 $ 230.27 Extra pick ups (2 yard compactor), each $ 84.78 $ 87,31 4 cu. Yard compactor, per month (2 services per week) $ 460.66 $ 474.32 30 cu yard Compactor, per pull $ 568.36 $ 58530 40 cu yard Compactor, per pull $ 675.25 $ 69537 30 cu yard Open -top (Recycle), per pull $ 211.95 $ 218.27 Front -Load container extra pick -up charges 2 cu yard $ 28.84 $ 29,70 3 cu yard $ 36.05 $ 37.12 4 cu yard $ 43.27 $ 44,56 6 cu yard $ 50.48 $ 51,98 8 cu yard $ 57.69 $ 59A1 10 cu yard $ 64.89 $ 66,82 OVER WEIGHT CHARGE $ 28.93 $ 29,72 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. iJ City of Schertz Schedule of Fees Sewer Rates ( 2016 -171 2017 -181 Residential Rates (Single Family) Base Rate -per month $ 11.16 $ 11,72 Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month City line Maintenance fee plus Franchise fee $ 0.44 $ 6.46 User Charge based on 100% of avg consumption mo. $ 3.35 $ 3,58 User avg. based on Nov, Dec, and Jan, min, 500 gals $ 3.88 $ 4,14 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.79 $ 4,64 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.34 $ 8.76 Business and Multi - family Dwelling Units: Base Rate per month $ 14.03 $ 14.73 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 $ 0.53 $ 0,55 User Charge -based on 100% of water consumed $ 3.35 $ 3,53 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.88 $ 4,14 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.42 $ 8.84 Public Schools Base Rate per month $ 3.35 $ 3.58 Base Rate -each public school shall be assessed a $ 14.03 $ 14.73 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 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 User Charge -based on 100% of all water consumed $ 3.35 $ 3,58 Per 1,000 gal charge Total- 12,000 gallons or less $ 3.88 $ 4.14 greater than 12,000 gallons $ 8.42 $ 8.84 For Information Purposes Only: Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (CCMA), Per 1,000 gallons $ 3.35 $ 3.58 includes 5% franchise fee SARA Customers Residential Rates (Single Family) Base Rate -per month $ 12.97 DEI..ETE Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month User Charge based on 100% of avg consumption mo. $ 4.98 DELETE User avg. based on Nov, Dec, and Jan, min. 500 gals. All Other Customers Per 1,000 gal Charge, Per Month User Charge -based on 100% of water consumed $ 7.79 DELETE 0 Civic Center Proposed Fee Schedule Changes The City of Schertz Event Facilities are here to offer customers a place to gather for social or cultural activities; we want them to celebrate their life events with us. We also aim to serve area businesses and other organizations who wish to hold meetings, trainings, conferences and /or other specialized events in a convenient location. Currently the Civic Center staff handles approximately 1,035 annual facility rentals, providing custom layouts for each event, set up and tear down, clean up, and an on -site Event Attendant for the entirety of the event. The Event Attendant positions were created last year to meet the growing demand for staff presence during the weekend and evening events. Based on feedback we have received in our Event Facilities surveys, renters have indicated a 98% satisfaction rating with our facilities and services. For the Ballroom, review of past fee schedules show that rates have not increased since 2009. The one rate increase during the life of the Ballroom was from 2008 to 2009 and the increase was $100 across the board, Monday - Sunday. In 2013 staff proposed a 'banquet package' price on the fee schedule, but as the package bundles the room rental with ancillary products, this was not a rate increase. The goal with the banquet package was to offer a more inclusive rate for our facilities and popular amenities. For FY 201.7 -18 staff requests a $100.00 increase in weekday rental rates (Sunday - Thursday) and a $200.00 increase in weekend rental rates (Friday /Saturday) for the Ballroom. For the Bluebonnet Hall, rates did increase in FY 2016 -17 from $500 to $575 on Friday /Saturday. Prior to that increase, rates were raised in 2009 from $300 to $500 on Friday /Saturday. The same banquet package that is offered in the Ballroom was also created in 2013 for this room. The weekday rates were set in 2009 and have not seen an increase since then. For FY 2017 -18, staff requests a $100.00 increase on Sunday rentals rates, a $25.00 increase on Monday- Thursday rental rates and a $25.00 increase on Friday /Saturday rental rates for the Bluebonnet Hall. We feel that the requested rate increases are supported by the added value and service that the Event Attendant positions provide to our renting customers. Additionally, the increase in revenue will help with the maintenance and repairs of the building as normal wear and tear occurs throughout the years. By reviewing the attached fee comparison, with the requested rate increases, we will remain . comparable and competitive with area venues while still continuing to provide a great value to our renters. Going forward, staff plans to annually evaluate costs of area rates to ensure we keep up with the market and remain competitive, with our ultimate goal to continue to provide great facilities and service to our customers. Fee Comparison Texas Administrative Code Page 1 of 2 «Prey Rule Next Rule>> Texas Administrative Code TITLE 1 ADMINISTRATION PART 3 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAPTER 70 COST OF COPIES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION RULE §70.13 Fee for Obtaining Copy of Body Worn Camera Recording (a) This section provides the fee for obtaining a copy of body worn camera recording pursuant to §1701.661 of the Government Code. (1) Section 1701.661 of the Government Code is the sole authority under which a copy of a body worn camera recording may be obtained from a law enforcement agency under the Public Information Act, Chapter 552 of the Government Code, and no fee for obtaining a copy of a body worn camera recording from a law enforcement agency may be charged unless authorized by this section. (2) This section does not apply to a request, or portions of a request, seeking to obtain information other than a copy of a body worn camera recording. Portions of a request seeking information other than a copy of a body worn camera recording are subject to the charges listed in §70.3 of this chapter. (b) The charge for obtaining a copy of a body worn camera recording shall be: (1) $10.00 per recording responsive to the request for information; and (2) $1.00 per full minute of body worn camera video or audio footage responsive to the request for information, if identical information has not already been obtained by a member of the public in response to a request for information. (c) A law enforcement agency may provide a copy without charge, or at a reduced charge, if the agency determines waiver or reduction of the charge is in the public interest. (d) If the requester is not permitted to obtain a copy of a requested body worn camera recording under § 1701.661 of the Government Code or an exception in the Public Information Act, Chapter 552 of the Government Code, the law enforcement agency may not charge the requestor under this section. Source Note: The provisions of this §70.13 adopted to be effective November 24, 2016, 41 TexReg 9099 Next Page Previous Page List of Titles Back to List https: / /texreg.sos.state.tx.us /public /readtac$ext.TacPage ?sl =R &app= 9 &p_dir= &p_rloc = &... 4/24/2017 411 . . • City Council Briefing July 11 2017 Page: WWILLDAN Economists.com 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 40 Many reasons for rate increases are beyond a City's ability to influence Cities that jointly share facilities can have lower unit costs Is Conclusion: higher rates are an unfortunate but inevitable fact of life in USA W"WILLDAN Page: 2 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY s 2015 — Rate Study completed; initial rate plan adopted r 2016 — rate plan adjusted to reflect several cost changes: ❑ SSLGC -- costs increase due to SAWS Tier 2 phase -out and ❑ SSLGC costs also increased due to Schertz' assumption of debt costs for Guadalupe well field HHER QR -MUNMY SERVICE SCHIERTZ I OPPORTUNITY u 2017 — further changes to costs that mostly benefit Schertz: ❑ SAWS announced they would extend Tier 2 water purchases until 2021, thus reducing the expected increases from SSLGC ❑ Guadalupe project now forecast to be on line in 2021 ❑ "Risk Premium" eliminated from SSLGC cost of service ❑ Schertz's FY 2018 utility budget is significantly lower than forecast in rate study ❑ City now expects less debt to be issued immediately to fund CIP needs u Result: expected water and wastewater rate increases for FY 2018 can now be scaled back �1 LLDAN � Econornists.com Page: 4 11 -- 5/8 Inch 21-- 3/4 Inch 31 -- 1 Inch 41 -- 1 1/2 Inch 51-- 2 Inch Compnd 61-- 2 Inch Turbine 71-- 3 Inch Compnd 81-- 3 Inch Turbine 91-- 4 Inch Compnd 101 -- 4 Inch Turbine 111 -- 6 Inch Compnd 121-- 6 Inch Turbine FH -- Fire Hydrants W�Wl LLDAN � Economists.com V, 23.19 10 5/8 Inch 34.78 20 3/4 Inch 57.96 30 1 Inch 115.93 40 1 1/2 Inch 185.48 50 2 Inch Compnd 231.85 60 2 Inch Turbine 370.96 70 3 Inch Compnd 556.44 80 3 Inch Turbine 579.63 90 4 Inch Compnd 973.78 100 4 Inch Turbine 1,159.26 110 6 Inch Compnd 27133.03 120 6 Inch Turbine 110.18 -MUNMY E S CHIERIF7Z I OPPOR SERVICTUNITY 28.09 42.12 70.21 140.40 224.65 280.82 449.31 673.96 702.04 11179.42 11404.08 2,583.51 HHER QR WILLDAN ists.com Page:6 11 5/8 Inch Blocks Inside City Outside City Block 1 - 6,000 $ 2.86 $ 5.96 Block 2 6,001 9,000 2.91 6.03 Block 3 9,001 12,000 3.15 6.57 Block 4 12,001 15,000 3.40 7.07 Block 5 15,001 187000 3.60 7.49 Block 6 181001 307000 4.53 9.42 Block 7 30,001 457000 5.15 10.72 Block 8 45,001 607000 5.48 11.41 Block 9 601001 757000 5.68 11.80 Block 10 75,001 Above 5.80 12.06 WILLDAN ists.com Page:6 Charge/1,000 Gal: Line Maintenance Fee User Charge -- CCMA Total 1-12,000 Total 12,001-Above jW007W1 LLDAN � Economists.com -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY Commercial/ Residential Institutions Institutions - $ 11.16 $ 14.03 $ 14.03 0.44 0.53 0.53 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.79 3.88 3.88 8.34 8.42 8.42 SERVICE SCHHEIRTZ I c,-,P,muTN,','Y,T, $140-00 $120.00 $10000 i® *"WILL DAN ists.com 9 C 0 0 C 0) zm M >L1 0 0 U) a) _ 0 4-3) 0 C L) CD 0 a) 0) Q 0 U) 0 0 U) CIO Page: 8 Source: TML 2017 Residential Rate Survey rn z *"WILL DAN ists.com 9 C 0 0 C 0) zm M >L1 0 0 U) a) _ 0 4-3) 0 C L) CD 0 a) 0) Q 0 U) 0 0 U) CIO Page: 8 Source: TML 2017 Residential Rate Survey 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 SERVICE SCHHERTZ I c-P,,muTN,',TY,TY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 WILLDAN Page: 9 71191 -- 3-4 Inch 51,61-- 2 Inch 41-- 11/2 Inch WILLDAN .com I Page: 10 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY Total = 1, 508, 239, 808 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY 2,012 2,013 2,014 2015 , 2016 2,017 2,018 2,019 2020 2021 2022 2023 , 2024 2025 2026 2027 40/WILLDAN ts.com Page: 11 21500,000,000 21000foop,000 1,1500f000,000 L0001SX)0,000 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY 2018 2019 2020 2021 0 SSLGC -- Gonzales SSLGC -- Gonzalez SSLGC -- Guadalupe CVLGC Total Purchases Less Risk Premium HHER QR 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $ 5,218,582 $ 5,568,102 $ 5,726,916 $ 6,023,998 $ 4,888,482 788,400 1,716,671 1,714,000 1,712,935 3,365,598 300,000 300,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY L I Previous rate plan assumed $30 million in CIP debt issued by 2024 Lj Based on staff discussions, rate plan revised to assume $20 million funded in smaller increments over same period $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 m Water m Wastewater N&/WILLDAN ts.com Page: 14 HHER QR 2018 2019 020 2021 2022 Operating /Capital Outlays $ 3,242,685 $ 1,822,109 $ 2,006,629 $ 2,204,949 $ 2,426,397 S S LGC /CV LGC 6,306,982 7,584,773 7,840,916 8,136, 933 8,654,080 Debt Service 681,937 744,568 749,392 892,420 996,964 Total Cost of Service 10,231,603 10,151,449 10,596,937 11,234,302 12,077,440 Operating /Capital Outlays $ 2,804,406 $ 3,064,704 $ 3,219,778 $ 3,390,941 $ 3,565,127 CCMA 3,917,407 4,246,137 4,452,230 4,719,109 4,938,427 Debt Service 895,640 969,007 1,194, 224 1,268,039 1,126, 632 Total Cost of Service 7,617,454 8,279,847 8,866,232 9,378,089 9,630,186 WILLIDAN .com Page: 15 IMMEM IMMOMM IMEMEM IMINEM IN -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 --0-2016 Rate PI an —0-2017 Update NOTE: 2016 Cost of Service is net of "Risk Premium" W"WILLDAN ts.com Page: 16 SERVICE Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Current Oct -17 Oct -18 Oct -19 Oct -20 Oct -21 WATER Rates Base Charge 5/8" $ 23.19 $ 23.89 $ 24.60 $ 25.34 $ 25.85 $ 26.36 3/4" 34.78 35.82 36.90 38.01 38.77 39.54 ill 57.96 59.70 61.49 6333 64.60 65.89 Volume Charge -- 5/8, 3/4, 1" - 6,000 2.86 2.95 3.03 3.13 3.19 3.25 6,001 9,000 2.91 3.00 3.09 3.18 3.24 3.31 9,001 12,000 3.15 3.24 3.34 3.44 3.51 3.58 12,001 15,000 3.40 3.50 3.61 3.72 3.79 3.87 15,001 18,000 3.60 3.71 3.82 3.93 4.01 4.09 18,001 30,000 4.53 4.67 4.81 4.95 5.05 5.15 30,001 45,000 5.15 5.30 5.46 5.63 5.74 5.85 45,001 60,000 5.48 5.64 5.81 5.99 6.11 6.23 60,001 75,000 5.68 5.85 6.03 6.21 6.33 6.46 75,001 Above 5.80 5.97 6.15 6.34 6.46 6.59 WASTEWATER Rates Residential Base Charge $ 11.16 $ 11.72 $ 12.89 $ 13.79 $ 14.76 $ 15.35 Line Maintenance Fee 0.44 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.61 User Charge 3.35 3.58 3.83 3.93 4.09 4.19 Total Charge per 1,000 Gallons - 12,000 3.79 4.04 4.34 4.47 4.67 4.80 12,001 Above 8.34 8.76 9.63 10.31 11.03 11.47 W1LLDA1 Page: 17 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Water WW Current Oct -17 Oct -18 Oct -19 Oct-20 Oct-21 5/8" Meter 5,000 5,000 $ 67.60 $ 70.54 $ 74.35 $ 77.13 $ 79.90 $ 81.94 Inc 2.94 3.81 2.77 2.78 2.04 5/8" Meter 10,000 5,000 82.34 85.72 89.99 93.23 96.33 98.70 Inc 3.38 4.27 3.24 3.10 2.37 1" Meter (Business) 30,000 30,000 380.81 397.23 423.49 443.96 464.45 478.50 Inc 16.42 26.27 20.47 20.48 14.05 -MUNMY SERVICE SCHHERTZ I OPPORTUNITY Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Water ww Current Oct -17 Oct -18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 5/8" Meter 5,000 W, 5,000 WW 2015/2016 Rate Plan $ 67.60 $ 74,75 $ 79.19 $ 82.68 $ 8633 $ 89.22 2017 Revised Rate Plan 67.60 70.54 74.35 77.13 79.90 81.94 5/8" Meter 10,000W, 5,000 WW 2015/2016 Rate Plan 82.34 91.10 96,19 10036 104.72 107.98 2017 Revised Rate Plan 82.34 85.72 89.99 93.23 96.33 98.70 1" Meter (Business) 30,000 W WW 2015/2016 Rate Plan 380.81 428,05 45833 48164 510.49 534.77 2017 Revised Rate Plan 380.81 397.23 423.49 443.96 464.45 478.50 2" Meter (Business) 120,000 W WW 2015/2016 Rate Plan 1,537.51 1,74271 1,877,88 1,99155 2,116.88 2,23424 2017 Revised Rate Plan 1,537.51 1,603.78 1,721.95 1,816.38 1,911.14 1,974.17 *"�'WILLDAN ts.com Page: 19 Prudent management by City staff has enabled magnitude of rate adjustments to be minimized Proposed rate plan will continue to enable water and wastewater utility to be financially independent and self- sufficient, and to invest in future of utility U Due to uncertain nature of growth, economy, weather and supply costs, recommend that one year rate plan be adopted and annual reviews continue *�WILLDAN .cam I Page: 20 CH UNMY SERVICE SHERTZ I O -MPPORTUNITY Agenda No. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Finance Subject: Presentation /Discussion and Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2017 -18 Budget In accordance with Section 1.02.006 of the Texas Local Government Code the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for FY 2017 -18. The first public hearing will be at the August 22, 2017 regular session. A second public hearing will be conducted at the August 29, 2017 regular session. A copy of the proposed FY2017 -1.8 Budget can be found on line at www.schertz.com. A paper copy is available for view in the City Secretary's office as well as the Schertz Library. FISCAL IMPACT General Fund $31,354,058 Special Events Fund 170,200 PEG Fund 200,000 Water & Sewer Fund 22,652,670 EMS Fund 9,007,173 Drainage Fund 2,763,927 Hotel Tax Fund 322,836 Park Fund 1.30,000 Tree Mitigation 157,000 Capital Recovery -Water 256,000 Capital Recovery -Sewer 335,500 Tax I &S Fund 6,994,532 Library Board 22,500 Historical Committee 11,750 SEDC 2,209,865 Total $76,588,011 RECOMMENDATION After a brief presentation and discussion by Council, public hearing will be held on the proposed FY 2017 -18 Budget. Agenda No. 4 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Finance Subject: Presentation /Discussion and Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2017 -18 Tax Rate At the August 8, 2017 . regular session the City Council, by record vote, established a proposed preliminary maximum tax rate of $0.4910, per $100 of value, with the M &O rate at $0.3248 and the I &S portion of $0.1 662. The proposed rate is not subject to rollback. In accordance with Chapter 26.05(d) of the State's Property Tax Code, a governing body must hold 2 public hearings on the tax rate if the proposed tax rate exceeds the lower of the Effective or Rollback Tax Rate. In this case the hearings are not required as the proposed rate is the same as the effective rate. The first public hearing will be at the August 22, 2017 regular session. The second public hearing will be conducted at the August 29, 2017 . regular session. During the final tax rate adoption process Council can approve a lower rate at that time, however they will not be able to approve a rate higher than this without republishing the notices and holding additional public hearings. Due to timing constraints set by the State Tax Code 26.05(a), the latest council could set a new preliminary rate is August 29, 2017 without calling special meetings. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed maximum rate maintains quality service to residents and businesses and provides growth in service offerings based on input staff received from Citizens and Council from Retreats, Community Meetings, the Citizen Survey, and elections. The current property tax rate is $0.4911 per $100 valuation. The proposed maximum tax rate will be $0.4910 per $100 valuation. The M &O portion of the property tax rate will increase to $0.3248 from $0.3168 per $100 valuation. The I &S portion will decrease to $0.1662 from $0.1743 per $100 valuation. RECOMMENDATION After a brief presentation and discussion by Council, public hearing will be held on the proposed FY 201.7 -1.8 Tax Rate. CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Development Services Agenda No. 5 Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -65 — Resolution. Authorizing a Pump and Haul Agreement with the Developer for the Hallie's Cove Subdivision. BACKGROUND The developer of the Hallie's Cover residential project, approximately 150 lots, located on the east side of FM 1.518 approximately 1,375 feet south of Trainer Hale Road is seeking to enter into a pump and haul agreement with the City of Schertz. The property is to be served by the future South Schertz Sewer Treatment Plant and Woman Hollering Creek trunk line. Rather than delay construction of the subdivision until those improvements are competed or construct a lift station and sewer lines now that would not be needed upon completion of the South Schertz Treatment Plant and Woman Hollering Creek trunk line, the developer is requesting approval of a pump and haul agreement. The City has entered into a similar agreement for the Reserve at Schertz. By entering into this agreement, the developer will bear the cost of providing pump and haul services until 2019 so that he can build houses on up to 47 of the lots in the project. The benefit to the City is that it ensure customers will be utilizing the South Schertz Treatment Plan and Woman Hollering Creek trunk line as soon as they are complete. The City would bear the cost of providing pump and haul service starting in 2019 if those improvements are not complete. More than 47 houses cannot be built until the development ties into the trunk line and treatment plan. Goal Approval of Resolution 17 -R -65 authorizing a pump and haul agreement for Hallie's Cove. Community Benefit This allows the developer to move forward with the project now and provides uses immediately upon completion of the South Schertz Sewer Treatment Plan and Woman Hollering Creek trunk line. Summary of Recommended Action Staff recommends Council approve the resolution authorizing the City to enter into the Agreement Triple H Development, LLC for pump and haul services FISCAL IMPACT The developer is putting up $380,000 to cover the cost of providing pump and haul services through 2018. RECOMMENDATION City Council Memorandum Page 2 Staff recommends approval of Resolution 17 -R -65. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17 -R -65 Pump and Haul Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -65 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE HALLIE'S COVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT FOR SEWER PUMP AND HAUL. WHEREAS, there is a lack of sewer service to serve an area of southern Schertz. WHEREAS, the sewer improvements including the southern Schertz sewer treatment plant and Woman Hollering Creek Trunk line is needed to provide sewer service, WHEREAS, the Developer of the Hallie's Cove Subdivision agrees to provide pump and haul services for sewer until 2019 or construction of the plant and trunk line, WHEREAS, there is a benefit to having development tie into the Woman Hollering Creek trunk line upon completion, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the Agreement with Developer for Pump and Haul services for Hallie's Cove. WHEREAS the Unified Development Code of the City of Schertz provides for developers to enter into agreements to defer the construction of required improvements until after the plat is filed. 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 the agreement for Pump and Haul Services for Hallie's Cove with TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LLC, generally in the form attached, subject to changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. 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 22"d day of August 2017. ATTEST: City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS M Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter WASTEWATER PUMP AND HAUL AGREEMENT FOR THE HALLIE'S COVE This Pump and Haul Agreement (this "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of the day of, 2017 (the "Effective Date ") by and between the CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home rule municipal corporation ( "City "), and TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LLC, or its successors and assigns ( "Developer "). City and Developer are sometimes referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS: Whereas, Developer is the owner of certain real property, which is more particularly described herein on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property "), and, which is located within the Sewer CCN and the (city limits) of the City; and Whereas, Developer desires to develop the Property as a residential subdivision known as Hallie's Cove (the "Project "); and Whereas, the offsite wastewater infrastructure necessary to collect and treat the Development (OWI) is not completed; and Whereas, Construction and acceptance of OWI is required by the Unified Development Code of the City of Schertz in order to record the plats for the "Development "; and Whereas, Developer desires to allow up to 47 residential homes to be constructed and be eligible to obtain certificates of occupancy while the aforementioned OWI is being completed; and Whereas, Before the OWI is completed Developer is requesting to use a licensed contractor to "pump and haul" the wastewater from the Development; and Whereas, Developer will be responsible for onsite wastewater infrastructure in the Development until the City accepts it; and Whereas, Developer and City also desire to memorialize certain terms with respect to the testing on onsite wastewater infrastructure and operation of pump and haul service from the Development; and Whereas, Developer has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") with San Antonio River Authority ( "SARA ") to provide pump and haul service from the Development; and Whereas, Developer and City have contemporaneously herewith also executed an Escrow Agreement associated with pump and haul service from the Development; and Whereas, City is amenable to the proposed interim solution as long as Developer provides financial security guaranteeing the completion of the Wastewater Infrastructure and the continuity of pump and haul services until connection to the "OWI" is completed and accepted by City for {00276459 2} public maintenance; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein along with other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, the parties hereto agree as follows: Article I. Terms 1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date until the earlier of a. the Project is connected to the OWI and the "pump and haul" service is on longer necessary. 2. Testing of Onsite Wastewater Infrastructure. All onsite wastewater infrastructure will be pressure tested prior to plat recordation. In the event additional dry utility work is completed after construction of wastewater collection system within the Project, the onsite wastewater infrastructure, including lateral service lines will be tested again and any necessary repairs will be made prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy by City. 3. Collection Tanks. Prior to completion of connection to the OWI, Developer will install a 20,000 gallon tank for the collection of onsite wastewater, which shall serve the first 26 single family main structures ( "houses ") to be constructed on separate lots within the Project. Within sixty (60) days (before /after) the issuance of the 27ti' building permit for a house within the Project, Developer shall install an additional 15,000 gallon tank for collection of onsite wastewater. Developer shall be responsible for the maintenance, operation and removal, and disposal, of the collection tanks and pumping system during the term of this Agreement. Although permission to "Pump and Hall" shall expire as provided in Article I. Section 1, above, Developer's obligation to safely remove and dispose of the collection tanks and pumping system, shall survive the expiration of this Agreement, until the collection tanks and pumping system are safely removed. 4. Alarm System. Developer will install an alarm system to monitor the wastewater collection system within sixty (60) days after the recordation of the first plat for the Project. 5. Monitoring/Pumping. Developer or its contractor shall monitor the level of the wastewater collection tank(s) on at least a weekly basis and will pump the tank(s) at least weekly or prior to them reaching 75 percent capacity, whichever is more frequent. The monitoring and pumping frequency may by be required to be increased, at the sole discretion of the City Engineer, as warranted by increased flow. 6. Maintenance of Onsite Water System. Developer will maintain the onsite wastewater system within the Project until the Term of this Agreement has expired. 7. SARA MOU. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall keep in effect the MOU with SARA attached hereto as Exhibit B. Article II. Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy 1. Issuance of Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy. The issuance of any building {00276459 2} permit or certificate of occupancy for any improvement within the Project area prior to completion of connection to the OWI, subject to the terms and conditions that follow: (a) Inspections. All facilities necessary to provide pump and haul service to the lot for which a building permit or a certificate of occupancy is to be issued have been completed and passed inspection by City, and wastewater service by pump and haul under this Agreement is otherwise available to the lot. (b) Fiscal Security to Assure Continuation of Pump and Haul. Fiscal security shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Escrow Agreement a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Developer has estimated the cost to use the Pump and Haul contractor until the OWI is completed will not exceed $380,000.00, and such amount shall be deposited with the Escrow Agreement. Upon the reasonable determination by City that additional fiscal security must be deposited with the Escrow Agent; Developer shall promptly deposit the required amount with the Escrow Agent. (c) Compliance with Agreement. Developer shall at all times during its term remain in compliance with all material terms and conditions of this Agreement. (d) Compliance with Development and Building Regulations. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement in no way negates or diminishes the regulatory requirements, which must be addressed for the approval of subdivision plats, or issuance of a building permit, or certificate of occupancy, as set forth in applicable local state, or federal regulations have been met. (e) This Agreement is not effective until Developer demonstrates to the City that the Developer has a current contract with a pump and haul provider that meets the requirements of this Agreement. (f) Until the OWI is completed an accepted, the City will issue no more than 47 building permits for lots within the Project. (g) Developer may not convey ownership of more than 47 lots until the OWI is completed and accepted. 2. Suspension on Issuance of Permits. In the event that at anytime the conditions in Sectionl of this Article, or any other provision of this Agreement are not met, it is specifically agreed that City may suspend development approvals for the Project, and may suspend the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for the Subdivision until Developer comes into compliance with this Agreement. Article III. Pump and Haul Services 1. Service Provided. In consideration for the City authorizing the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy as provided herein, the Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause wastewater from the Project to be pumped and hauled and disposed of in a manner that is compliant with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, and that does not result in any spills, leaks, or detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. The pump and haul shall continue until such time that connection to the OWI is completed and accepted by City for service and maintenance, or January 1, 2019, whichever is sooner. The Developer shall at all times, during {00276459 2} the term of this Agreement, maintain all facilities related to the pump and haul service in good repair and working condition and all wastewater effluent in compliance with applicable law. The Developer shall promptly report any spills or leaks to the City. The Developer shall cooperate with the City to provide any information to and file any reports with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the TCEQ) as required by law; and shall promptly, sooner than 30 days after demand, reimburse the City for any expenses the City may incur under this Agreement. The Developer shall further comply with and cause the company supplying pump and haul services to comply with the terms of service set forth in Exhibit `B." 2. Pump and Haul Provider. The Developer shall contract with a reputable company that holds all licenses required by the "TCEQ" to pump and haul wastewater from the Project area and to maintain all pump and haul facilities, including wastewater manholes, pumps, piping, tanks, secondary containment, alarm systems, and any other appurtenances as shown on approved Construction Plans, in good repair and working condition. Immediately upon completion of pump and haul operation Developer is required to clear and restore the site of the pump and storage system. 3. Pump and Haul Operations. Prior to starting the pump and haul operation the Pump and Haul Operator and Developer must comply with the following: (a) Plans. Texas Licensed Professional Engineer must provide certification to the City Engineer that the wastewater collection, storage, pumping, and alarm systems have been tested as required in 30 TAC 213.5(c)(3)(A) and (D) and City requirements. The plans shall include, but not be limited to: (i) All weather access road to final collection site; (ii) Secondary containment provision; (iii)Pump specifications (iv)Alarm system specifications. (b) Installation of a watertight wet well /holding tank as per TCEQ requirements. No discharge shall be allowed until installation of the tank, pump, and monitoring /alarm system is complete and verified by Developer's engineer. 4. Insurance. The Pump and Haul Provider shall maintain worker comp insurance in at least the minimum coverage required by statute; liability insurance covering death, injury or property loss with a minimum coverage amount of $100,000.00 per occurrence unless the Pump and Haul Provider is the San Antonio River Authority. 5. Contact information. Developer shall maintain with the City at all times the company's current contact information and designated representatives who are available twenty -four hours a day to respond to complaints or issues related to wastewater disposal. {00276459 2} 6. Records. The Developer shall cause the company to maintain complete records of the pump and haul service provided, and the Developer shall maintain with the City a copy of any reports required by applicable state and federal regulations, related to providing pump and haul services. Specifically Developer shall provide reports as follows: (a) A monthly report of the pump- and -haul operation shall be provided to the City by the 10th day of each following month. The report must include the following: (i) The volume of wastewater pumped each day (ii) The total volume of wastewater pumped each month (iii)Verification of proper disposal (b) A final report totaling the items above is due within 10 days of the final inspection. 7. Transition of Services. The City and Developer shall reasonably cooperate to smoothly transition wastewater service from the Developer to the City upon connection to the OWI. Article IV. Wastewater Service to be provided by City 1. The Parties agree that upon final acceptance of the connection to the OWI by the City and placement of the Wastewater Infrastructure into service, the City will provide wastewater utility service to all customers within the Subdivision on same terms and conditions as similarly situated customers and property. Article V. Insurance and Indemnification 1. Insurance. If the Pump and Haul provider is a party other than the San Antonio River Authority, the company selected by Developer to provide pump and haul services under this Agreement shall procure and maintain at its sole cost and expense for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services as required by this Agreement. The Developer shall procure and maintain at its sole cost and expense for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services as required by this Agreement. All Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the City's at the time of execution of this Agreement. (a) Insurance policies required: (i) General Commercial Liability Coverage — Minimum of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage; $2,000,000.00 aggregate. (ii) Business Automobile Liability Coverage. — Minimum Combined Single Limit of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. {00276459 2} (iii) Umbrella/Excess Liability Coverage -- Minimum of not less than $1,000,000.00. (b) General Requirements Applicable to Policies. (i) Only insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas will be accepted. (ii) Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Schertz, Texas. (iii) Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be furnished to the City of Schertz, Texas. (iv) The City of Schertz, Texas, its officials, employees, and volunteers, are to be added as "Additional Insured" to the General Commercial Liability Policy and the Umbrella/Excess Liability Policy. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials, employees, or volunteers. (v) Each insurance policy shall comply with such other requirements as set forth in Exhibit "D" (entitled "Requirements For All Insurance Documents ". 2. Developer acknowledges and agrees that City is providing this Agreement as an accommodation to Developer so that Developer may receive building permits and certificate of occupancies before the OWI is complete; and, therefore, as part of the consideration offered to City for its agreement to allow the pump and hall activities authorized hereunder, is Developer's promise and agreement, after consultation with its attorney, to the provisions that follow: DEVELOPER, SHALL ON BEHALF OF ITSELF ITS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PUMP AND HAUL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED BY OR FOR DEVELOPER, (COLLECTIVELY "DEVELOPER "), IN THE EXECUTION OR PERFORMANCE OF ITS RIGHTS, DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS, ACTS .OR OMISSIONS UNDER THIS WASTEWATER PUMP AND HAUL AGREEMENT FOR THE HALLIE'S COVE SUBDIVISION UNITS I AND 2 (THE "AGREEMENT ") SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY AND ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, AGENTS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (COLLECTIVELY, THE "CITY INDEMNITEES ") FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL DEMANDS, LOSSES, JUDGMENTS, DAMAGES, SUITS, CLAIMS, ACTIONS, LIABILITIES AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, IN LAW OR IN EQUITY, OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE WHATSOEVER, FOR BODILY INJURY, DEATH OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, WHICH ANY CITY INDEMNITEES MAY SUFFER {00276459 2} OR SUSTAIN OR WHICH MAY BE ASSERTED OR INSTITUTED AGAINST ANY OF THE CITY INDEMNITEES RESULTING FROM, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH INJURY TO OR DEATH TO ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CAUSED BY DEVELOPER'S INTENTIONAL, RECKLESS, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT OR NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSION UNDER THE AGREEMENT OR UNDER COLOR OF THE AGREEMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION: (i) THE BREACH BY DEVELOPER OF ANY WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR COVENANT MADE IN THE AGREEMENT, OR (ii) THE VIOLATION OF ANY STATUTE, ADMINISTRATIVE RULE OR REGULATION BY DEVELOPER, WHICH CAUSES ANY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE, OR A SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE, OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TO ASSESS A FINE OR TAKE OTHER ACTION ADVERSE TO THE CITY. DEVELOPER FURTHER EXPRESSLY AGREES THIS INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION SHALL EXTEND TO PROTECT THE CITY INDEMNITIES FROM CITY INDEMNITIES' OWN NEGLIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR RIGHTS, DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS, ACTS OR OMISSIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT THESE INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION SHALL ONLY BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THE CITY INDEMNITIES' GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF ANY INJURY TO OR DEATH OF ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR ANY DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, BUT NOT OTHERWISE. DEVELOPER FURTHER EXPRESSLY AGREES THIS INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION SHALL SURVIVE AND CONTINUE TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FOR FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT. 3. Enforcement Actions. In the event that the EPA or the TCEQ issues any form or order or penalty for violations of applicable law resulting from the pump and haul services provided under this Agreement, the Developer shall be responsible for payment of said penalties within the time required under the order or applicable law. Article VI. Notice of Agreement 1. Notice of Agreement and Pump and Haul Services. Developer shall record a memorandum of this agreement in the Official Public Records of Bexar County, Texas that places prospective property owners on notice that wastewater service may be provided by pump and haul service. The Developer shall further give written notice to purchasers of lots within the Project that wastewater service will be provided by pump and haul until completion of the Wastewater Infrastructure and shall cause anyone who purchases lots within the Project to give such notice to subsequent purchasers. {00276459 2} Article VII. Default and Related Provisions 1. Default. If one Party believes that the other Party is in Default (herein so called) of any other provision of this Agreement, the non - defaulting Party will give written notice to the other Party, specifying the event of Default and extending the defaulting Party 30 days to cure the Default or, if the curative action cannot reasonably be completed within 30 days, 30 days to commence the curative action and thereafter to diligently pursue the curative action to completion. This 30 -day period for notice and opportunity to cure must pass before the non- defaulting Party may initiate any remedies available to the non - defaulting Party due to an alleged Default. The non - defaulting Party must mitigate any direct or consequential damages arising from any Default to the extent reasonably possible under the circumstances. The Parties agree that they will use good faith, reasonable efforts to resolve any dispute by agreement, including engaging in non - binding mediation or other alternative dispute resolution methods as recommended by the laws of the State of Texas, before initiating any lawsuit to enforce their respective rights under this Agreement. If the Default is not cured within the 30 -day period, or if curative action is not commenced or diligently pursued in the case of curative action that cannot reasonably be completed in 30 days, the non - defaulting Party may pursue all remedies, at law or in equity, that it deems appropriate to redress such Default. Either Party may seek specific performance or mandamus to enforce the terms of this Agreement. Article VIII. Miscellaneous The following miscellaneous provisions are made part of this Agreement: 1. Additional Instruments. City and Developer agree and covenant to cooperate, negotiate in good faith, and to execute such other and further instruments and documents as may be reasonably required to fulfill the public purposes provided for and included within this Agreement. 2. Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties as to the matters set forth in this Agreement. No alteration of or amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless given in writing and signed by the party or parties sought to be charged or bound by the alteration or amendment. 3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in Bexar County, Texas. Venue for any action arising under this Agreement shall lie in the state district courts of Bexar County, Texas. 4. Assignment. Developer understands and agrees that the City expressly prohibits Developer from selling, transferring, assigning or conveying in any way any rights to receive under this Agreement without the City's prior written consent. 5. Binding Obligation. This Agreement shall become a binding obligation on the signatories upon execution by all signatories hereto. The City warrants and represents that the individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City has full authority to execute this Agreement and {00276459 21 bind the City to the same. Developer warrants and represents that the individual executing this Agreement on its behalf has full authority to execute this Agreement and bind it to the same. 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same document. 7. Legal Construction. The Parties acknowledge that the Parties and their counsel have reviewed and revised the Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of the Agreement. 8. Enforcement. The City Attorney or his or her designee may enforce all legal rights and obligations under this Agreement without further authorization. Developer shall provide to the City Attorney all documents and records that the City Attorney requests to assist in determining Developer's compliance with this Agreement. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, along with the Escrow Agreement, contains the entire agreement between the parties. This Agreement may only be amended, altered or revoked by written instrument signed by the City and Developer. 10. Exhibits and Attachments. All Exhibits and Attachments referenced in this Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes. 11. Force Majeure. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties to this Agreement that if the performance of any obligations hereunder is delayed by reason of war, civil commotion, acts of God, inclement weather, fire or other casualty, or court injunction, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes therefore, governmental restrictions, governmental regulations, governmental controls, governmental action, delay in issuance of permits or approvals (including, without limitation, fire marshal approvals), enemy or hostile governmental action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, and other causes beyond the reasonable control of the obligated party and delays caused by the other party, the party so obligated or permitted shall be excused from doing or performing the same during such period of delay, so that the time period applicable to such obligation or requirement shall be extended for a period of time equal to the period such party was delayed. 12. Immunities and defenses. a) It is expressly understood and agreed by all Parties hereto that in the exercise of their rights, and the performance of their obligations, hereunder, Developers at no time will be acting as agents of the City and that all consultants or contractors engaged by Developers respectively will be independent contractors of the Developers; and nothing contained in this Agreement is intended by the Parties to create a partnership or joint venture between the Parties and any implication to the contrary is hereby expressly disavowed. The Parties hereto understand and agree that City will not be liable for any claims that may be asserted by any third party occurring in connection with the pump and hall services performed by, {00276459 2} or on behalf of Developer under this Agreement. b) By entering into this Agreement, the PARTIES do not waive, and shall not be deemed to have waived, any rights, immunities, or defenses either may have, including the defense of parties, and nothing contained herein shall ever be construed as a waiver of sovereign, statutory or official immunity by the CITY with such rights being expressly reserved to the fullest extent authorized by law and to the same extent which existed prior to the execution hereof. c) No employee of City, or any councilmember or agent of City, shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or growing out of this Agreement. 13. Mutual Assistance. City and Developer will do all things reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement and to aid and assist each other in carrying out such terms and provisions. 14. Notices. Any notice, statement and /or communication required and /or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be in writing and shall be mailed by first -class mail, postage prepaid, or delivered by hand, by messenger, by facsimile, or by reputable overnight carrier, and shall be deemed delivered when received at the addresses of the Parties set forth below, or at such other address furnished in writing to the other Parties thereto: DEVELOPER: Triple H Development, LLC 15720 Bandera, Suite 103 Helotes, Texas 78203 Attention: Harry Hausman Email: harrylhausman @gmail.com CITY: City of Schertz, Texas 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 Attention: City Manager WITH COPY TO: Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal Hyde & Zech, P.C. 2517 N. Main Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Attention: Charles Zech 15. Ordinance Applicability. The signatories hereto shall be subject to all ordinances of the City, whether now existing or in the future arising provided however no ordinance shall reduce or diminish the contractual obligations contained herein. This Agreement shall confer no vested {00276459 2} rights on the Project unless specifically enumerated herein. 16. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under the present or future laws, then, and in that event, it is the intention of the Parties hereto that the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and it is also the intention of the Parties to this Agreement that in lieu of each clause or provision that is found to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable a provision be added to this Agreement which is legal, valid and enforceability and is a similar in terms as possible to the provision found to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable. 17. Survival of Covenants. Any of the representations, warranties, covenants, and obligations of the Parties, as well as any rights and benefits of the Parties, pertaining to a period of time following the termination of this Agreement shall survive termination. [Signature pages to follow] {00276459 2} Owner: TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Texas limited liability company By: Name: Title: Date: THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2017 by , the of Triple H Development, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. (SEAL) Notary Public in and for The State of Texas My Commission Expires: {00276459 2} City CITY OF SCHERTZ, a Texas municipal corporation In Name: John C. Kessel, its City Manager Date: THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2017 by John C. Kessel, City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, on behalf of said City. (SEAL) Notary Public in and for The State of Texas My Commission Expires: {00276459 21 {00276459 2} Exhibit A {00276459 21 M 0 M4 0 m Oaf TV 1.. )@p )1 F. Rte . ppl '�Jlv HAWES CQIM - 91-95 ACRES MASM OLMOrkOrr PLAN NWFR-FA Ima f00276459 2} LO �URLE N DHLER '� digg ji '�Jlv HAWES CQIM - 91-95 ACRES MASM OLMOrkOrr PLAN NWFR-FA Ima f00276459 2} LO �URLE N DHLER '� digg ji Exhibit B Pump and Haul Service trorn Hailies cove- subdivision, Schertz, Texas This Memorandum of Understanding (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY, a river authority established by the State of Texas ("SARN), and TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LILC, a Texas limited liability company ("Developer'), with both sometimes referred to collectively herein as the "Parties", to outline the general terms of the Parties' agreement to provide Pump and Haul Service, From a sewer manhole located within the City of Schertz, Texas, Hallies Cove Subdivision (the "Subdivision") being developed by Developer at F,M.1518, City Of Schertz, Texas. WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the approximately 85,851 acres of real property located within the Subdivision that it intends to develop into approximately 147 single family residential lots (the "Lots") as sot forth within the Preliminary Plat approved by the City of Schertz and attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, as part of the approval process, the City of Schedz has required Developer to provide sanitary sewer service to the Lots within the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, Cibolo Greek Municipal Crook Authority (CCMA) is a provider of sanitary sewer utility services within CCMA's CCN; and WHEREAS, Developer desires to construct the Subdivision to a Future Sanitary Sevier Line and to obtain access to sanitary sewer utility services, from CCMA for the residences to be constructed on the Lots within the subdivision, and CCMA desires to provide its sanitary sewer utility services-, and NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby set forth their mutual understanding of agreement: 1, Developer, at its own expense and utilizing a qual[ified contractor of its own selection, shall diligently construct the Project from its Subdkoislon to the GCMA's Line. Project shall be constructed by Developer within utility easements coordinated by CCMA or City of Schertz or Developer's engineer at Developers, expense, all In a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with all applicable building codes and City of Schertz specification and details (00276459 2) 2, Upon substantial completion or written approval of the Project by CCMA or pity of Schertz and the Lying in of the Project into the city of Schertz Line, SARA agrees to provide sanitary sewer services (Pump and Hauling) from the agreed upon manhole within the subdivision and delivered along with processed at GCMA, 3, SARA agrees to provide temporary pump and haul services of single family sewer waste from the Subdivision at the agreed rate of 15 cents (0,16) per gallon until such time @5 the Project is substantially completed or able to be discharged within the gravity line. 4, The Parties agree to work together and assist each other in good faith to meet their respective obligations under this Agreement to ensure timely sewer utility service to the Subdivision, EXECUTED AND EFFECTIVE AS OF THE 17— DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017, TRIPLE H DVVELOPMENT, ILLG a Texas Ilmi d liability copnpany Title: (00276459 2) SARA: SAN ANTONIO RIYER AUTHORITY J 4 By: Name: Its: U7 ell p = w > W r m 0 A 0 m — A 7p, 4 1, r J j IBM Ali 4 iM Al Nfit i3 IN I I fig HAWES WVF 98-9S ACRES WaM ULMUPWiT PLdm (00276459 2) gauRSEN �OIZHLER fit I ,Y Exhibit C Escrow Agreement ESCROW AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into by and among TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ( "Triple H "), CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas municipal corporation ( "City ") and ALAMO TITLE COMPANY (the "Title Company "). RECITALS WHERAS, Triple H is developing a residential subdivision in Schertz, Texas known as Hallie's Cove (the "Development "); WHEREAS, the offsite wastewater infrastructure necessary to collect and treat the Development ( "OWI ") is not completed; WHEREAS, before the OWI is completed Triple H can use a licensed contractor to "pump and haul" the wastewater from the Development; WHEREAS, Triple H has estimated the cost to use the contractor until the OWI is completed will not exceed $380,000.00; WHEREAS, Triple H and City have entered into that certain Wastewater Pump and Haul Agreement for the Hallie's Cove Subdivision (hereinafter the "Pump and Haul Agreement ") WHEREAS, the City desires that the funds necessary to pay the contractor be deposited and held in in escrow by the Title Company, with periodic draws made therefrom to pay the contractor; provided Triple H is in compliance with the terms of the Pump and Haul Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties herein contained, and in further consideration of the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00), which each of the parties acknowledges is adequate and sufficient, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. On or before one hundred twenty (120) days of Triple H's sale of the lots in Unit 1 of the Development or April 1, 2018 whichever occurs first, it shall deposit $380,000.00 with the Title Company such amount being the amount estimated by Triple H to pay the contractor, and will place same in an interest- bearing account. {00275843 4} 1 2. Upon receipt of an invoice from the contractor, Triple H shall promptly submit such invoice to the Title Company and City. Triple H shall not submit more than two (2) invoices to Title Company per month. 3. Promptly upon receipt of such invoice, City shall review same, if found to be satisfactory, provide written notice to the Title Company of such approval. 4. The Title Company is hereby authorized and instructed to deliver to the contractor that portion of the escrowed funds necessary to pay the invoices as they are submitted by Triple H, and approved by City. Payment shall be made to the contractor by the Title Company within seven (7) business days of its receipt of the invoice from Triple H. Upon payment of the invoices, Title Company shall notify via email Triple H and City the invoices have been paid. 5. After receiving written notice from City that connection to the OWI has been completed and the services of the contractor are no longer needed, the Title Company shall distribute any remaining funds then in escrow to the Triple H. 6. Upon written notice from the City that Triple H is in substantial violation of a material term, provision or condition of the Agreement; Title Company shall cease distributions to contractor, or Triple H and may escrow the remaining funds in the registry of a court of competent jurisdiction located in Bexar County, Texas. [i1TIN 7. Interest on any escrowed funds that inures will become part of the escrowed 8. In the event additional funds are necessary to pay the contractor, Title Company shall provide written notice to Triple H to deposit additional funds. Triple H shall deposit said additional funds with 5 business days of receiving notice from Title Company. 9. The duties and responsibilities of the Title Company shall be limited to those expressly set forth in this Agreement. The Title Company is directed to disregard any and all notices or instructions given by any of the parties hereto or by any other person, firm or corporation, except such notices, certifications or instructions as are expressly provided for herein and orders or process of any court of competent jurisdiction entered or issued, which, by lapse of time or otherwise, shall no longer by or shall not be subject to appeal or review. 10. Triple H and City, to the extent permitted by law, hereby hold harmless the Title Company from any and all liabilities, costs, or damages which the Title Company may incur or cause by reason of any payments hereunder, or by virtue of the performance of the duties of the (00275843 a) 2 Title Company. In carrying out the provisions of this Agreement, the Title Company shall not be bound in any way by any other agreement between or among the parties hereto nor shall the Title Company be liable to any party for the acts of ordinary negligence of the Title Company. This release shall not extend to acts of the Title Company constituting fraud, gross negligence or moral turpitude. 11. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. If any Party brings or commences any legal action or proceeding to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement (or for damages by reason of an alleged breach of this Agreement), the prevailing Party in such action shall be entitled to recovery of all costs and expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 12. Notices. All notices, demands, and requests which may be given or which are required to be given by either Party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective either: (a) on the date personally delivered or delivered by fax, to the address set forth herein, as evidenced by written receipt theretofore or fax confirmation whether or not actually received by the person to whom addressed; (b) on the third (3rd) business day after being sent, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the intended recipient to the address set forth herein; or (c) on the first (1st) business day after being deposited into the custody of a nationally recognized overnight delivery service addressed to such Party at the address set forth herein, as follows: If to City: City of Schertz, Texas 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 Attention: Email: With a copy to: Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal Zech, P.C. 2517 North Main Ave. San Antonio, Texas 78212 Attention: Charles E. Zech Email: charles.zech @rampage - sa.com If to Triple H : Triple H {00275843 4} 3 15720 Bandera, Suite 103 Helotes, Texas 78203 Attention: Harry Hausman Email: harrylhausman @gmail.com With a copy to: Pulman, Cappuccio, Pullen, Benson & Jones, LLP 2161 NW Military Hwy, Suite 400 San Antonio, Texas 78213 Attention: Devin "Buck" Benson Email: bbenson @pulmanlaw.xom If to Escrow Agent: Alamo Title Company 434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2208 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Attention: Kathy Jackson Email: kathy.jackson @fnf.com Upon at least ten (10) days prior written notice to all Parties, each Party shall have the right to change its address to any other address within the United States of America. 13. Governing Law. This Agreement has been prepared, is being executed and delivered, and is intended to be performed in the State of Texas, and the substantive laws of such state shall govern the validity, construction, enforcement, and interpretation of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be fully performable in Bexar County, Texas. 14. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the Parties, provided that Escrow Agent shall not assign its rights, duties, or obligations hereunder in whole or in part without the prior written consent ofCity and Triple H, and any such assignment without said consent shall be void. 15. Invalidity. If one or more of the provisions hereof shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect under applicable law, such invalidity, {00275843 4} 4 illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 16. Entire Agreement. The terms and provisions of this Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, constitute the entire agreement between the Parties. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties, and their respective heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors, trustees, receivers, and assigns. 17. Modifications /Amendments /Termination. This Agreement or any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived, or terminated only by written instrument duly signed by the Parties or their successors or assigns. The Escrow Agent is specifically instructed that only such mutual instructions are to be recognized. 18. Authority. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that he is fully authorized to do so. 19. Headings. The captions or headings at the beginning of the various paragraphs or sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only, and shall not add to or subtract from the meaning or contents of each paragraph or section. 20. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, and such counterparts, when taken together, shall have the full force and effect of an original, fully executed instrument. 21. Conflicts. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of the Site Development Agreement and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. Dated this day of , 2017. [Signature Pages to Follow] {00275843 4} 5 TRIPLE H DEVELOPMENT, LLC, limited liability company By: Name: Title: {00275843 4} CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas municipal corporation C Name: Title: {00275843 4} TITLE COMPANY: ALAMO TITLE COMPANY I Name: Title: {00275843 4} PULMANP CAPPUCCIO, DEVIN D. "BUCK BENSON (210) 392 -0510 BBENSONC4PULMAN LAW.COM Ms. Kathy Jackson Escrow Officer Alamo Title Company 434 N, Loop 1604 West Suite 2208 San Antonio, Texas 78232 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS 2161 NW MILITARY 1-IIGHWAY, SUITE 400 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78213 WWW.PULMANLAW.COM TELEPHONE: (210) 222 -9494 FACSIMILE: (210) 892 -1610 July 5, 2017 Vin enuiir: knthu iticicsan cr fii,f cant OFFICE LOCATIONS: SAN ANTONIO DALLAS / FORT WORTH (BY APPOINTMENT ONLY) AUSTIN Re: G.F. No, 4008016866 (Gehan) Purchase Agreement between Triple H Development, LLC and Gehan Homes, Ltd. dated effective June 14, 2016 as amended and G.F. No. 4008016867 (Highland) Purchase Agreement between Triple H Development, LLC and Highland Homes — San Antonio, LLC as amended (collectively the "Contracts ") Dear Kathy: We continue to represent and write to you on behalf of Seller in the above- referenced transactions. Upon the closing of the Lots in Unit 2 as defined in the Contracts, you are instructed to place $380,000.00 of the sales proceeds in a separate account for the benefit of the City of Schertz, Texas (the "City ") in connection with an Escrow Agreement related to pump and haul services Seller is to provide pursuant to a separate agreement with the City. THIS LETTER IS NOT INTENDED TO EVIPOSE ANY OBLIGATION IN VIOLATION OT THE TEXAS INSURANCE CODE, CHAPTER 9, TEXAS TITLE INSURANCE ACT, RULE P -35. Sincerely, Devil "Buck" Benison (00279615) The foregoing is acknowledged this the day of July 5, 2017: ALAMO TITLE COMPANY (00279615) Exhibit "D" REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL INSURANCE DOCUMENTS The Participating Student ( "Student ") shall comply with each and every condition contained herein. The Student shall provide and maintain the minimum insurance coverage set forth below during the term of its agreement with the City. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF INSURANCE DOCUMENT With reference to the foregoing insurance requirements, Student shall specifically endorse applicable insurance policies as follows: 1. All insurance policies shall be endorsed to the effect that The City of Schertz will receive at least thirty (30) days written notice prior to cancellation or non - renewal of the insurance. 2. All insurance policies, which name The City of Schertz as an additional insured, must be endorsed to read as primary and non - contributory coverage regardless of the application of other insurance. 3. Chapter 1811 of the Texas Insurance Code, Senate Bill 425 82(R) of 2011, states that the above endorsements cannot be on the certificate of insurance. Separate endorsements must be provided for each of the above. 4. All insurance policies shall be endorsed to require the insurer to immediately notify The City of Schertz of any material change in the insurance coverage. 5. All liability policies shall contain no cross liability exclusions or insured versus insured restrictions. 6. Required limits may be satisfied by any combination of primary and umbrella liability insurances. 7. Student may maintain deductibles in the amount of 8. Insurance must be purchased from insurers having a minimum AmBest rating of B +. 9. All insurance must be written on forms filed with and approved by the Texas Department of Insurance. (ACORD 25 2010/05). Coverage must be written on an occurrence form. 10. Contractual Liability must be maintained covering the Students obligations contained in the contract. Certificates of Insurance shall be prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized agent and shall contain provisions representing and warranting all endorsements and insurance coverages according to requirements and instructions contained herein. 11. Upon request, Student shall furnish The City of Schertz with certified copies of all insurance policies. 12. A valid certificate of insurance verifying each of the coverages required above shall be issued directly to the City of Schertz within ten (10) business days after contract award and prior to starting any work by the successful Student's insurance agent of record or insurance company. Also, prior to the start of any work and at the same time that the Certificate of Insurance is issued and sent to the City of Schertz, all required endorsements identified in sections A, B, C and D, above shall be sent to the City of Schertz. The certificate of insurance and endorsements shall be sent to: City of Schertz emailed to: City Manager Faxed to: _ Address Schertz, TX CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITV INSURAM F, CA T1118 01111111110M 18 188M) AG A fMMIlt 011 itat'UilralAIJON ONLY AND 0011PS110 110 111a311TO tii'ON YII2 CQ1 OIENTIPIOATH DOW NOT AFITI1ttM1'►'iMILY OR IMIGA't1YILY AMUNI flXT410 1�-�tGTIR VU CO'�1G1AGH AFFO (1!11,x'1', 11110 01111Vli'fC1ATO Oil I1�OVIII1NOM 17ONO NOT C.1 -OIfDfit7 TH A Ct5�1 1MOT D11"Y(!fifr Illy 10BUllr) II I11 PAR8104TA` M, Oft PRODUO R11 , AND 71111OURTIPICIAM11o1,D1tta IMPORTA1111, It tlaa coitlrinto 1to11ae Ia a o ADOITlt111& I W411%tho 1*11ey(lup) M si lip aflkrs€ lL 11 SUBRODATiON iairora (41141 sO31a1111a1ts of 010 hallcy, 0011kNIn 14)11atpD raroy tbaialtrs fill a1411ata�ILdal1. A 01*4110TA on 111Iu a011111cu1a 1u. mattiflp 'ata 11o11tur in Kam 01 Quah_altbrgar al�4 � Pn+DucEn ADO laluralnco Arp"Y 4T Iyr - T„u��+1;�;nylrac�ryl!n�ss „ IIIJOBEtA111t111r ACOGWa111r 1:d9U1rEn II #Ir _ t illA1�T4!tL!r1. ra 4L ;�k'��rl��r ilravnrat�+llr�rUrr5ylr�fiuralsr (= _ IP1APM`a9WQOi Tanvo, rl, 92M.Dti 1 ure €ryrE ny L sur�r�uy l ,t� Iii r T 02 CLAMS MAUI � dSopm A OWL LIE6earn: RY W11L L � A�rOLipsItBLlstialLlrY ( l y js �{ 1'.1rfa'xU��o RA � �n IOS� 13ir�57#1 (Instructions ° - PRa5,n� F) Insurer letter repre: c at r(o f a i -_0 � ___ G) General Liability In! 1Na#f Enz#ea Flhlaou n@ K "'�' �A111�WARIME'' � �1 rls�r+ �n c4'at v+r ntvtt 11 ilrtrrlyUt,Flntfnll rn.yra r , Complete the certificate of (x) in the box (occt, City of Schertz E2 1400 $ohuriz PorkYMY fy nrtd # OM34 A) Certificate of Insure B) Producer (Insurani address. = } UMU ! C) Insured's (Insuran( 1) _ lksiuINVI)Dl sous J) Umbrella CoveragE I"-f' N OVOMDWOV01111900 WROU'WOSL�. WILY 01101:11040 C11t111110D0l oiIL' v I DD4 [lida 1100D 0101114!14I10%1nwrobin 111.000,010 ash D) Insurer (name/nam nngGWPWt0POPM,rasl90L4W- nTj6tA 4E11 M (611tih <r- 011ar,r,sWOnllMI Mhr.kU404110,1004101910IsW,01 , Authorized to do bL C-ffnet a hnuary },1612 mist t!n u6jopllunt vAt1101hcrAnr i014, TOXI10, 0,000 (ett Asti ennrjeJ lyy Tom 1�plslstura 07ig (or higher) or other 1_ E) NAIC # (National A At1O11,t AT14hI =—,- ft _ SHOULD ANY OF T1ru ADOVII DII&dRID110 P01,11 i nit 11MM11011 VAU 11MR41 0P, 114Y101 McORDANIVE WIYl1'11113 P4DJWY 11ADY1910119, 4— 1AU'l, I MIZED 810HAT'U'RE REr.QWIAGOIWRE - �14�R•�a1�A€ie�lta��t��ortl Tin A1ORD rrnrns.rend W -11c, nra rafflst0tud hinerkn of A00110 companies) F) Insurer letter repre: c at r(o f a i -_0 � ___ G) General Liability In! (x) in the box (occt, City of Schertz E2 1400 $ohuriz PorkYMY H) This section shall 801160, U M64 Professional Liabili Attw PurchaMnp, Dept subrogation waive( 1) Automobile Liabilitlocaltt�tata��1 J) Umbrella CoveragE contract and in accordance with the contract value. At1O11,t AT14hI =—,- ft _ SHOULD ANY OF T1ru ADOVII DII&dRID110 P01,11 i nit 11MM11011 VAU 11MR41 0P, 114Y101 McORDANIVE WIYl1'11113 P4DJWY 11ADY1910119, 4— 1AU'l, I MIZED 810HAT'U'RE REr.QWIAGOIWRE - �14�R•�a1�A€ie�lta��t��ortl Tin A1ORD rrnrns.rend W -11c, nra rafflst0tud hinerkn of A00110 K) Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance — information must be completed in this section of the certificate of insurance form (if applicable). L) Builder's Risk Policy — for construction projects as designated by the City of Shavano Park. Professional Liability Coverage — for professional services if required by the City of Shavano Park. M) Insurance Policy #'s N) Insurance policy effective dates (always check for current dates) O) Insurance Policy limits (See Insurance Requirements Checklist) P) This section is to list projects, dates of projects, or location of project. Endorsements to the insurance policy(ies) must be provided separately and not in this section. The following endorsements are required by the City of Shavano Park. (1) Adding the City of Schertzas an additional insured. The "additional insured" endorsement is not required for professional liability and workers compensation insurance; and (2) Waiver of Subrogation (3) Primary and Non - Contributory (4) Cancellation Notice Q) City of Shavano Park's name and address information must be listed in this section R) Notice of cancellation, non - renewal, or material change to the insurance policy(ies) must be provided to the City of Schertzin accordance with a cancellation notice endorsement to the policy and /or per the policy provisions based on the endorsement adding the city as an additional insured. (Sec. 1811.155, Tex. Ins. Code) S) The certificate must be signed by the Authorized Agent in this section of the certificate form. Exhibit "D" Evidence of Insurance Agenda No. 6 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Development Services Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -66 — Consideration . and /or action approving a Request for a Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area grant for 817 Main Street. (B. James /B. James) In January of 2015, City Council approved Resolution 15 -R -03 establishing the Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area in order to facilitate the preservation of historic structures to promote the economic vitality of the Main Street area as a tourist destination, the City of Schertz is offering incentives that will serve to improve existing properties and businesses within this area. Council subsequently modified the program via :Resolution 1.6 -R -37 to eliminate the requirement that properties be designated as Landmark Properties and to slightly expand the area eligible for the grant. The resolution established details of the program including eligibility requirements, and draft funding agreement. The program provides matching funds up to $20,000 per property to go towards the cost of renovations. The aim of the program is to protect, enhance, and preserve the historic resources and landmarks which represent distinctive element of the City of Schertz' historic, architectural, economic, cultural, and social heritage by providing property owners an incentive for protecting their property; stabilize and improve property values; foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, and to promote the use of the historic structures for the culture, education and general welfare of residents, and strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the Main Street area to residents and visitors, as well as provide support and stimulus to businesses. The owner of the property at 817 Main Street has applied for the grant and went to the Schertz Historical Preservation Committee (SHPC) on August 14, 2017 for a recommendation on their proposal. The building is owned and used as the City on a Hill Church. They are proposing to replace the roof with a standing seam metal roof. The total estimated cost is approximately $19,500. The SHPC recommended approval of the request. Goal Promote the history and culture of the City of Schertz to tourists and residents. City Council Memorandum Page 2 Community Benefit Recognize structures of significance to the community's past. Summary of Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of Resolution 17 -R -66 approving the Schertz Main. Street Area Preservation Incentive Grant for up to $10,000 subject to the applicant entering into the incentive agreement with the City. FISCAL IMPACT Up to $1.0,000 from the Hotel Occupancy Tax Funds. Approval of Resolution 17 -R -64 ATTACHMENT Resolution 17 -R -64 Main Street Area Incentive Program Summary Main Street Area Incentive Program Map Main Street Area Incentive Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -66 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A HISTORICAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE MAIN STREET AREA GRANT FOR 817 MAIN STREET IN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, AND RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, The City of Schertz desires to protect, enhance, and preserve the historic resources and landmarks which represent distinctive elements of Schertz' historic, architectural, economic, cultural, and social heritage by providing property owners and incentive for protecting their property; and WHEREAS, Stabilize and improve property values; and WHEREAS, Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, and to promote the use of the historic structures for the culture, education, and general welfare of residents; and WHEREAS, Strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the Main Street area to residents and visitors, as well as provide support and stimulus to businesses. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Historical Incentive Program for Main Street; WHEREAS, the Schertz Historic Preservation Committee is in support of this program and recommended approval of the grant request for 817 Main Street for up to $10,000; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Schertz Main Street Area Preservation Incentive Program grant request for 817 Main Street subject to the approved criteria of the program and execution of a funding agreement as outlined in 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 22nd day of August, 2017. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Schmoekel, Deputy City Secretary (CITY SEAL) Schertz Main Street Area Preservation Incentive Program City of Schertz Section 1.1 Purpose The City of Schertz finds that promoting the enhancement and perpetuation of structures of historical importance and significance are necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational and general welfare of the public. The area around Main Street in Schertz once served as commercial and social hub of the community. The City seeks to improve the image of the area around Main Street through historic restoration and rehabilitation of structures in the Main Street area to serve as a commercial, social, cultural and tourism hub of the City. The program is intended to: a) Protect, enhance, and preserve the historic resources and landmarks which represent distinctive elements of Schertz' historic, architectural, economic, cultural, and social heritage by providing property owners and incentive for protecting their property; b) Stabilize and improve property values; c) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, and to promote the use of the historic structures for the culture, education, and general welfare of residents, and: d) Strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the Main Street area to residents and visitors, as well as provide support and stimulus to businesses. In order to facilitate the preservation of historic structures to promote the economic vitality of the Main Street area as a tourist destination, the City of Schertz is offering incentives that will serve to improve existing properties and businesses within this area. Section 1.2 Administration The program will be administered by the City of Schertz Building Inspections Division. Section 1.3 Eligibility Criteria All of the following eligibility criteria must be met: a) Structures must have been constructed more than 50 years prior to the date of application. b) Property must be located within the Main Street Incentive Area. See attached map. c) All taxes and government fees must be current on the property. Section 1.4 Types of Grant Assistance Funding for this program is generated by the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) funds. a) Program assistance is available to owners who make verified exterior improvements (however limited to comprehensive maintenance and rehabilitation painting, roof, windows, foundation, fagade restoration including replacing windows, wall repairs, brick re- pointing, replacing and exposing transom windows; and improvements necessary to stabilize a structure) consistent with applicable codes, or who make verified interior improvements to upgrade interior systems to current building codes (however limited to sanitary sewer lines, fire, HVAC, insulation, electrical, plumbing, or a combination of interior or exterior improvements) and which are approved in advance by the Schertz Historical Preservation Committee and City Council. Grants are available with a cap of $20,000 per property. b) Grants will not be provided for work already completed or which is begun prior to approval of the grant application. c) Funds will be provided on a 50150 matching basis. In kind contributions may be counted toward the match requirement. Section 1.5 Grant Application Procedures At the start of the fiscal year, the city will promote the amount of funding available. Applications will be received throughout the fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. a) Property owner submit an application along with any required supporting documentation (i.e. drawings, total project cost estimate, photographs, contactor bids, tax certificates, etc.). Applications will be reviewed by the Building Inspections Staff for completeness. b) After submittal of a grant request, a preliminary site visit will be made by the Building Inspections Staff along with the Chairperson of the Schertz Historical Preservation Committee. c) Applications will be reviewed and evaluated by the Schertz Historical Preservation Committee. The Committee will evaluate the application based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Committee's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for review and approval. d) City Council will decide which entities qualify for assistance based on the architectural value of their proposed projects to the City of Schertz, the compatibility of the proposed projects with the Main Street Area, and the cost effectiveness of the proposed project in relation to the proposed amount of the grant. e) The property owner and City will execute a Grant Agreement detailing the obligations of the grantee, the method and timing of reimbursement, and outlining the scope of work eligible for reimbursement. I) Work must be completed within one year from the date of execution of the Grant Agreement, however; the Historical Preservation Committee may grant an extension of up to one year. N I= L � Y x rt x i It � � 1 � ,At till a t$i r� x wry f� k 1 may,. ` 5vtn"y' �y l✓ �'6't: „/,.y' •• ^fix S itt i � t ! C C i u' r F J �a 1 ti+ t t � 4 ` k er t d ! 1 x nW W C a) Ci G W a/ �°)� v! I1 ti+ t t � 4 ` k er t d ! 1 x nW W C a) Ci G W a/ �°)� v! I1 STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § HOTEL TAX FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AND FOR EXPENDITURE OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS This Hotel Tax Funding Agreement (AGREEMENT) is made and entered I into by and between the City of Schertz, Texas (CITY) and (ENT T. WHEREAS, the ENTITY -�----`��devcloped a proposal to and WHEREAS, the City of Schertz finds thatr promoting the enhancement and perpetuation of structures of historical importance and significande',are necessary to promote t)re economic, cultural, educational and general welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, the area of the community; and WHEREAS, the. Ci historic restoration and.,.f6hhb social, cultural and tourism bul WHEREAS, in order'� vitality of the �%�-Street area serve to - existing pxop WHERBAS, the City" revenues to the- ° NOW, THEREFORE, , it in Schertz— 66 served as commercial and social hub seeks to in npvc the Re of the area around Main Street through if , ion of structures in the .-MA Strce fYhfea to serve as a commercial, 4 f1be," City; and of historic structures to promote the economic City of Schertz is offering incentives that will his area.; and City of Schertz desires to provide Hotel Occupancy Tax agreed by and between the CITY and ENTITY as follows: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide funding to the ENTITY for the project identified in the attached Exhibit "A" (the "Project"), the intent of which is to protect, enhance, and preserve the historic resources and landmarks which represent distinctive elements of the City of Schertz' historic, architectural, economic, cultural, and social heritage by providing property owners an incentive for protecting their property; stabilize and improve property values; foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, and to promote the use of the historic structures for the culture, education, and general welfare of residents, and strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the Main Street area to residents and visitors, as well as provide support and stimulus to businesses. PAGE 1 OF 5 Section 2. Obligation of the ENTITY. The ENTITY shall use all of the awarded funds provided by the CITY in accordance with Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code, the ENTITY'S funding application, and the attached Exhibit "A". Section 3, Reporting Requirements of the ENTITY. The ENTITY shall deliver a detailed accounting of the expenditures for the Project within thirty (30) days after completion of the Project (the "Post Event Report"). The Post Event Report shall include copies of receipts and other documents establishing the expenditures for the project. The CITY shall not make reimbursements for expenditures where no receipt or invoice is provided. Partial or incomplete reports will not be accepted. Section 4. Authorization of Payment. Subject to,tfi6 BNTri compliance with the terms of this AGREEMENT the CITY a s gr percent (50%) of the Project from hotel occupancy tax funds. Paymi (45) days of acceptance of the complete Post Event Report. Partial i accepted. Only expenditures that meet Chapter 0' of the Tax Code reimbursed, Section S. Appeal Process. An'y-J present their appeal in writing within t4 ("v Section 6. Rights. The Ci ty of S records of the ENTITY that l_ relate to expenses, has the right * conduct --An.1audit of Section 7. The Y'S satisfactory performance and to pay the ENTITY up to fifty ii.twill be made within forty-five )rincomplete reports will not be and lhi&AGREEMENT shall be the decision-df the CITY must denial, time, to inspect the books or ,4ENT. The CITY, at its sole become effective as of the date entered below. affective date or once the terms have been met, Section 8. Indemnific'Afion. T agrees to defend, indemnify and bold harmless the CITY, its offidets, agents and employees, agh_iust any and all claims, lawsuits, judgments, cause of action, costs and expensd,s .__fOr personal -injury including death), property damage or other harm for which recovery of damages is-.sought, suffqr d by any person or persons, that may arise out of or be occasioned by the ENTITY's brea0h of ,any ..of -f46 terms or provisions of this AGREEMENT, or by any negligent act or emission of the ENTITY�iitgl&ffibers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, or subcontractors, in the performance of this AGREE except that the indemnity provided for in this paragraph shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence of the CITY, its officers, agents, employees or separate contractors, and in the event of joint and CODCLUTCUt negligence of both the ENTITY and the CITY under Texas law and without waiving any defenses of the parties under Texas law. The provisions of this paragraph 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. -Both parties expressly agree that this AGREEMENT does not assign any responsibility for civil liability to the City of Scheriz that may arise by virtue of this AGREEMENT. Section 9. Termination- A. party may terminate this AGREEMENT in xholc or in part if the PACE 2 OF 5 other party fails to comply with a term of the AGREEMENT, including the inability of the ENTITY to conform to any change required by federal, state or local laws or regulations; or for the convenience of either party. The terminating party shall provide written notification to the other party of the decision to terininate this AGREEMENT within thirty (30) days before the effective date of termination. A party may terminate the AGREEMENT for breach of any provision of this AGREEMENT, upon written notice of the breach and the breaching patty shall have ten (10) days after receipt of the written notice in which to cure the breach to the satisfaction of the non-breaching party. Section 10. Notice. All notices required or permitted under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or mailed as follows: to the CITY at: City of Schertz Attention: City Manager 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, TX 78154 (210) 619-1000 To the ENTITY at: [Name of Ell,, (Attention: [Address: [Mailing address if different front [City, State, ZIP, [Telephone num. p�: _eSdetion 11. PiM�-Agre6iribnt. This -AGREEMENT constitutes the entire agreement of the parties ing the sub er"coittained herein. The patties may not modify or amend this AGREEMEN-T-, -except by wri! approved by the governing bodies of each party and duly executed by Section 12, _ZMproval. AGREEMENT has been duly and properly approved by each party's governing body abd);911git" a binding obligation on each party. Section 13. Assignment. Except as otbenvise, provided in this AGREEMENT, a party may not assign this AGREEMENT or subcontract the performance of services without first obtaining the written consent of the other patty. Section 14. Non-Waiver, A party's failure or delay to exercise right or remedy does not constitute a waiver of the right or remedy. An exercise of a right or remedy under this AGREEMENT does not preclude the exercise of another right or remedy. Rights and remedies under this AGREEMENT are cumulative and are not exclusive of other -rights or remedies provided by law. PAGE 3 OF 5 Section 15. Paragraph Headings. The various paragraph headings are inserted for convenience of reference only, and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this AGREEMENT or any section thereof. Section 16. Attorney fees. In any lawsuit concerning this AGREEMENT, the prevailing part), shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the nonprevailing party, plus all out -of- pocket expense such as deposition costs; telephone, calls, travel expenses, expert witness fees, court costs, and thew reasonable expenses, unless otherwise prohibited by law. Section 17. Severability. The parties agree that in=.the event any provision of this AGREEMENT is declared invalid by a court of competent jurrsdlctioti " that part of the AGREEMENT is severable and the decree shall not affect the remainder of the AGREEMENT. The remainder of the AGREEMENT shall be in full force and effect. Section 18, Venue. The parties agree that';7-AW that -All disputes that arise of this AGREEMENT are governed by the laws of the State of Texas and verme for all purposes herewith all be in Ivlilam County, Texas. - Section 14. Certificate of Insuraj.cc. The ENTITY---a s to provide a certificate of insurance for liability and worker's compensation insurance or letter of self- insurance on its letterhead indicating its self- insured status before any event a iarded $znding under is AGREEMENT. The cast of the insurance herein mentioned to be secured and marntamed by the ENTITY shall be borne solely by the ENTITY. IN WITNESS HEREOF,.-',-the CiT AGREEMENT to be of ective:this ' x" da: City Secretary (Title) (Title) and execute this ZO PAGF 4 4F 5 [Describe the prof cet to be performed] PAGE S or 5 Agenda No. 7 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Development Services Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -67 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD) regarding hours of use the Natatorium use. (B. James) BACKGROUND: On October 27, 2015 the City Council approved Resolution 15 -R -98 which authorized an interlocal agreement with SCUCISD retarding the Natatorium. The resolution spelled out the times the school district could use the facility — 6 lanes of the competition pool and exclusive use of the locker facilities in the natatorium from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Monday through Friday beginning the first day of instruction of the school year and ending the last day of instruction during the school year. After having operated through the spring of 2017, the YMCA, SCUCISD staff and City staff all agree that allowing greater flexibility in hours of usage will benefit the residents of Schertz and students. In order to better support students through coaching and accommodation of class schedules SCUCISD is wanting to split and slightly expand the hours of use during the day. SCUCISD doesn't need to use the facility every Monday through Friday during the school year due to testing, holidays, etc. allowing the YMCA to better plan for the use of the facility allows for greater use by the community. Staff is proposing to amend the agreement with SCUCIS to provide that the staff of the City, YMCA and SCUCISD will work over the summer to reach agreement on use of the facility by SCUCISD including practice times, meetings and special events (tryouts, swim camps, etc.) that generally provides the same level of use by SCUCISD and allows Schertz residents to use the facility. Staff will present an overview to the City Council each summer on the proposed use. The proposed interlocal agreement will stipulate that if city staff cannot reach an agreement on hours of use, then use will be as stipulated in the current agreement. As presented to City Council on August 1, City staff has been working with SCUCISD Staff and YMCA staff on hours of use for this coming year. At this point that will be from 5:30 to 8:30 3 days per week and from 3:30 to 5:00 3 days per week. The students will have exclusive use of the lockers during the morning time and will either use the family changing rooms or have a short window to change in the lockers at the start and end of practice. This ensure students will not be changing with the general public. The School District will work to notify the YMCA staff in advance when they do not need these times so that the YMCA can plan for that. Staff will work with School District staff to draft the amended interlocal agreement over the next month. City Council Memorandum Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approval of Resolution No. l7-&-67 ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17-R-67 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -67 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (SCUCISD) REGARDING HOURS OF USE OF THE NATATORIUM AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Schertz (the "City ") has entered into an interlocal agreement with the Schertz - Cibolo - Universal City Independent School District (the "SCUCISD ") as authorized by Resolution 15 -R -98; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement authorized by Resolution 1.5 -R -98 outlines the use of the City's natatorium by SCUCISD; and WHEREAS, both City and SCUCISD wish to amend the terms of that interlocal agreement with regard to hours of use of the facility by SCUCISD; and WHEREAS, amending the hours of use is a benefit to both the residents of Schertz and the students of SCUCISD by providing for more effective and efficient use of the facility; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into an interlocal agreement with SCUCISD. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City authorizes the City Manager to enter into an amended interlocal agreement with SCUCISD regarding hours of use of the Natatorium as recommended by the City Manager and approved by the City Attorney. 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. Section 8. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of August, 2017. ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor 14 Agenda No. 8 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Fire / Emergency Management Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -68 - Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 Hazard mitigation activities are an investment in a community's safety and sustainability. The purpose of a Hazard Mitigation Plan is to protect people and structures and to minimize the costs of disaster response and recovery. It is widely accepted that the most effective hazard mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the regulation and control of development are ultimately made. A hazard mitigation plan addresses hazard vulnerability that exist today and in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is essential that a plan identify projected patterns of how future development will increase or decrease a community's overall hazard vulnerability. The goal of this Plan is to minimize or eliminate long -term risks to human life and property from known hazards by identifying and implementing cost - effective hazard mitigation actions. Even though only part the City of Schertz resides in Bexar County, the remaining parts of the city that reside in Guadalupe and Comal counties are covered under this plan FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact for the plan to be adopted. If not adopted, the City of Schertz will not maintain the eligibility for future grant funding from Federal disaster relief. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan ATTACHMENTS Resolution. No. 17-R-68 Exhibit A — Proposed Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan 50077367.2 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -68 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WITH BEXAR COUNTY, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, natural hazards in the City of Schertz area historically have caused significant disasters with losses of life and property and natural resources damage; and WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) require communities to adopt a hazard mitigation action plan to be eligible for the full range of pre - disaster and post - disaster federal funding for mitigation purposes; and WHEREAS, FEMA requires that communities update hazard mitigation action plans every five years in order to be eligible for the full range of pre- disaster and post- disaster federal funding for mitigation purposes; and WHEREAS, the City of Schertz has assessed the community's potential risks and hazards and is committed to planning for a sustainable community and reducing the long -term consequences of natural and man- caused hazards; and WHEREAS, the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) outlines a mitigation vision, goals and objectives; assesses risk from a range of hazards; and identifies risk reduction strategies and actions for hazards that threaten the community; therefore, THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 2. The City vests with the Mayor the responsibility, authority, and means to inform all parties of this action; assure that the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be reviewed at least annually and that any needed adjustments will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Section 3. The City will pursue available funding opportunities for implementation of the proposals designated therein, and will, upon receipt of such funding or other necessary resources, seek to implement the actions contained in the mitigation strategies; Section 4. The City agrees to take such other action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the Plan and report on progress as required by FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM). Section 5. 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 6. 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 7. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 8. 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 9. 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 10. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 22"d day of August, 2017. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) 50234811.1 EXHIBIT A 50234811.1 A -�. Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 Mitigating Risk for a Safe; Secure and Sustainable Future APA: June 22, 2017 H20 PARTNERS PLAN YOUR RECOVERY For more information, visit our website at: ammm Written comments should be forwarded to: H2O Partners, Inc. P. O. Box 160130 Austin, Texas 78716 iLnfo@h2opartnersusa.com www.h2o artnersusa.com MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Table of Contents HIM . , Background............................................................................................................... ............................1 -1 Scopeand Participation ............................................................................................. ............................1 -2 Purpose.................................................................................................................... ............................1 -2 Authority.................................................................................................................. ............................1 -3 Summaryof Sections ................................................................................................. ............................1 -3 Plan Preparation and Development 2 -1 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ............................................................. ............................... 2 -7 Timeline for Implementing Mitigation Actions ...................................................... ............................... 2 -10 Public and Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................... ............................... 2 -11 Section 3 - County Profile Overview............................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 Population and Demographics ................................................................................... ............................3 -4 Future Development 3 -6 EconomicImpact .................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -7 Existing and Future Land Use and Development Trends ........................................... ............................... 3 -7 HazardIdentification ................................................................................................. ............................4 -1 Natural Hazards and Climate Change ...................................................................... ............................... 4 -3 Overview of Hazard Analysis .................................................................................. ............................... 4 -5 HazardRanking ......................................................................................................... ............................4 -6 HazardDescription .................................................................................................... ............................5 -1 Location................................................................................................................. ............................... 5 -1 Extent.................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 -2 HistoricalOccurrences ............................................................................................ ............................... 5 -4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Table of Contents Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................... ............................... 5 -6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 -6 Section 6 - Drought HazardDescription ................................................................................................ ............................... 6 -1 Location................................................................................................................ ............................... 6 -2 Extent................................................................................................................... ............................... 6 -2 HistoricalOccurrences .............................................................................................. ............................6 -4 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................... ............................... 6 -6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ....................................................................................... ............................... 6 -6 11 111 i If_. HazardDescription .................................................................................................... ............................7 -1 Location................................................................................................................ ............................... 7 -1 Extent................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 -29 Historical Occurrences ......................................................................................... ............................... 7 -33 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................. ............................... 7 -38 Vulnerabilityand Impact ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 -39 NFIPParticipation ............................................................................................... ............................... 7 -45 NFIP Compliance and Maintenance ...................................................................... ............................... 7 -46 RepetitiveLoss .................................................................................................... ............................... 7 -47 Section 8 - Thunderstorm Wind HazardDescription .................................................................................................... ............................8 -1 Location................................................................................................................. ............................... 8 -1 Extent.................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 -2 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................................ ............................... 8 -3 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................... ............................... 8 -9 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................ ............................... 8 -9 HazardDescription .................................................................................................... ............................9 -1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Table of Contents Location................................................................................................................. ............................... 9 -1 Extent.................................................................................................................... ............................... 9 -1 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................................ ............................... 9 -2 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................... ............................... 9 -5 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................ ............................... 9 -6 1 HazardDescription ............................................................................................... ............................... 10 -1 Location............................................................................................................... ............................... 10 -3 Extent.................................................................................................................. ............................... 10 -3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................................... ............................... 10 -4 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................. ............................... 10 -6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ...................................................................................... ............................... 10 -6 1► ` i r1wo, HazardDescription .............................................................................................. ............................... 11 -1 Location.............................................................................................................. ............................... 11 -1 Extent............................................................................................................... ............................... 11 -26 HistoricalOccurrences ....................................................................................... ............................... 11 -53 Probabilityof Future Events ............................................................................... ............................... 11 -56 Vulnerabilityand Impact ................................................................................... ............................... 11 -56 ►` W. HazardDescription ............................................................................................... ............................... 12 -1 Location............................................................................................................... ............................... 12 -1 Extent.................................................................................................................. ............................... 12 -2 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................................... ............................... 12 -4 Probability of Future Events ................................................................................. ............................... 12 -9 Vulnerabilityand Impact ...................................................................................... ............................... 12 -9 •' i • HazardDescription ............................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Table of Contents Location............................................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1 Extent.................................................................................................................. ............................... 13 -5 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 -6 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................. ............................... 13 -7 Vulnerabilityand Impact ...................................................................................... ............................... 13 -7 HazardDescription ............................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1 Location............................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -2 Extent.................................................................................................................. ............................... 14 -5 Historical Occurrences ........................................................................................ ............................... 14 -43 Probability of Future Events ............................................................................... ............................... 14 -43 Vulnerabilityand Impact .................................................................................... ............................... 14 -43 • ICI ' �' .;. MitigationGoals .................................................................................................. ............................... 15 -1 Goal1 .................................................................................................................. ............................... 15 -1 Goal2 .................................................................................................................. ............................... 15 -1 Goal3 ...................................................................................................................... ...........................15 -2 Goal4 .................................................................................................................. ............................... 15 -2 Goal5 .................................................................................................................. ............................... 15 -2 Goal6 ...................................................................................................................... ...........................15 -3 Section 16 - Mitigation Actions Summary............................................................................................................. ............................... 16 -1 BexarCounty ....................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -4 Bexar County — County -wide Actions .................................................................. ............................... 16 -24 AlamoHeights ................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -37 BalconesHeights ................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -52 CastleHills ......................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -54 ChinaGrove ....................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -60 Converse............................................................................................................ ............................... 16-74 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Table of Contents Elmendorf.......................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -80 FairOaks Ranch ................................................................................................. ............................... 16 -89 GreyForest ...................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -104 Helotes............................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -116 HillCountry Village ........................................................................................... ............................... 16 -138 HollywoodPark ................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -153 Kirby................................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -170 LeonValley ...................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -181 LiveOak ........................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -189 OlmosPark ...................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -205 SaintHedwig .................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -219 SandyOaks ...................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -234 Schertz 16 -241 ShavanoPark ................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -253 Somerset......................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -271 TerrellHills ...................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -276 UniversalCity ................................................................................................... ............................... 16 -285 VonOrmy ........................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -297 Windcrest........................................................................................................ ............................... 16 -300 l Plan Maintenance Procedures .............................................................................. ............................... 17 -1 Incorporation....................................................................................................... ............................... 17 -1 Monitoringand Evaluation ................................................................................... ............................... 17 -3 Updating.............................................................................................................. ............................... 17 -5 Continued Public Involvement .............................................................................. ............................... 17 -6 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Table of Contents Appendix A - Planning Team Appendix B - Public Survey Results Appendix C - Critical Facilities Appendix D - Dam Locations Appendix E - Meeting Documentation Appendix F - Capability Assessment Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 1: Introduction Background............................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Scopeand Participation .......................................................................................................... ..............................2 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 Authority................................................................................................................................ ............................... 3 Summaryof Sections .............................................................................................................. ..............................3 Bexar County, located in south - central Texas, is the fourth largest County in Texas and the 17th largest County nationally. Bexar County was created in December 1836, and was named for San Antonio de Bexar, one of the 23 Mexican municipalities of Texas at the time of its independence. Bexar County is bounded by Kendall County and Comal County to the north, Guadalupe County to the northeast, Wilson County to the south east, Atascosa County to the south, Medina County to the west, and Bandera County to the northwest. The County is about 190 miles west of Houston and 140 miles from both the U.S.- Mexican border to the southwest and the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast. The county seat is the City of San Antonio, which is the second -most populous city in Texas and the seventh - largest city in the United States. Texas is prone to extremely heavy rains and flooding with half of the world record rainfall rates (48 hours or less).' While flooding is a well -known risk, Bexar County is susceptible to a wide range of natural hazards, including but not limited to extreme heat, drought, hail, and winter storms. These life- threatening hazards can destroy property, disrupt the economy, and lower the overall quality of life for individuals. While it is impossible to prevent an event from occurring, the effect from many hazards to people and property can be lessened. This concept is known as hazard mitigation, which is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects.' Communities participate in hazard mitigation by developing hazard mitigation plans. The Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and FEMA have the authority to review and approve hazard mitigation plans through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Hazard mitigation activities are an investment in a community's safety and sustainability. It is widely accepted that the most effective hazard mitigation measures are implemented at the local government level, where decisions on the regulation and control of development are ultimately made. A hazard mitigation plan addresses hazard vulnerabilities that exist today and in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is essential that a plan identify projected patterns of how future development will increase or decrease a community's overall hazard vulnerability. ' http: / /floodsafety.com/ texas /regional_ info / regional _info /sanantonio_zone.htm z http: / /www.fema.gov/ hazard - mitigation - planning- resources MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 1: Introduction Bexar County's Plan is a multi - jurisdictional Plan. The participating jurisdictions include Bexar County, the City of Alamo Heights, the City of Balcones Heights, the City of Castle Hills, the City of China Grove, the City of Converse, the City of Elmendorf, the City of Fair Oaks Ranch, the City of Grey Forest, the City of Helotes, the City of Hill Country Village, the Town of Hollywood Park, the City of Kirby, the City of Leone Valley, the City of Live Oak, the City of Olmos Park, the City of Saint Hedwig, the City of Sandy Oaks, the City of Schertz, the City of Shavano Park, the City of Somerset, the City of Terrell Hills, the City of Universal City, the City of Von Ormy, and the City of Windcrest. These jurisdictions provided valuable input into the planning process. Throughout the plan "Bexar County planning area" refers to the entire planning area including all participating jurisdictions. Similarly, the term "countywide" refers to the entire planning area including all participating jurisdictions. The focus of the Plan is to identify activities to mitigate hazards classified as "high" or "moderate" risk, as determined through a detailed hazard risk assessment conducted for Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions. The hazard classification enables the County and participating jurisdictions to prioritize mitigation actions based on hazards which can present the greatest risk to lives and property in the geographic scope (i.e., planning area). The Plan was prepared by Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, and H2O Partners, Inc. The purpose of the Plan is to protect people and structures and to minimize the costs of disaster response and recovery. The goal of the Plan is to minimize or eliminate long -term risks to human life and property from known hazards by identifying and implementing cost - effective hazard mitigation actions. The planning process is an opportunity for Bexar County, the participating jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the general public to evaluate and develop successful hazard mitigation actions to reduce future risk of loss of life and damage to property resulting from a disaster in the Bexar County planning area. The Mission Statement of the Plan is, "Maintaining a secure and sustainable future through the revision and development of targeted hazard mitigation actions to protect life and property." Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, and planning participants identified ten natural hazards to be addressed by the Plan. The specific goals of the Plan are to: • Minimize disruption to Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions following a disaster; • Streamline disaster recovery by articulating actions to be taken before a disaster strikes to reduce or eliminate future damage; • Demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; • Serve as a basis for future funding that may become available through grant and technical assistance programs offered by the State or Federal government. The Plan will enable Bexar County and participating jurisdictions to take advantage of rapidly developing mitigation grant opportunities as they arise; and • Ensure that Bexar County and participating jurisdictions maintain eligibility for the full range of future Federal disaster relief. Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 1: Introduction Authority µ ��r The Plan is tailored specifically for Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, FEMAand plan participants including Planning Team members, stakeholders, and the general public who participated in the Plan development process. The ,k. Plan complies with all requirements promulgated by the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and all applicable provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (P.L. 106 -390), and the Bunning - Bereuter - Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108 -264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). Additionally, the Plan complies with the Interim Final Rules for the Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (44 CFR, Part 201), which specify the criteria for approval of mitigation plans required in Section 322 of the DMA 2000 and standards found in FEMA's "Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide" (October 2011), and the "Local Mitigation Planning Handbook" (March 2013). Additionally, the Plan is developed in accordance with FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) Floodplain Management Plan standards and policies. M► i Sections 1 and 2 of the Plan outline the Plan's purpose and development, including how Planning Team members, stakeholders, and members of the general public were involved in the planning process. Section 3 profiles the planning area's population and economy. Sections 4 through 14 present a hazard overview and information on individual natural hazards in the planning area. The hazards generally appear in order of priority based on potential losses to life and property, and other community concerns. For each hazard, the Plan presents a description of the hazard, a list of historical hazard events, and the results of the vulnerability and risk assessment process. Section 15 presents hazard mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation actions for Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions are presented in Section 16, while Section 17 identifies Plan maintenance mechanisms. The list of planning team members and stakeholders is located in Appendix A. Public survey results are analyzed and presented in Appendix B. Appendix C contains a detailed list of critical facilities for the area, and Appendix D is dam locations. Appendix E contains information regarding workshops and meeting documentation. Capability Assessment results for Bexar County and participating jurisdictions are located in Appendix F.3 3information contained in some of these appendices are exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Bexar County' Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 2: Planning Process Plan Preparation and Development ....................................................................................... ..............................1 Overviewof the Plan .......................................................................................................... ..............................1 PlanningTeam .................................................................................................................... ..............................2 PlanningProcess ................................................................................................................. ..............................5 KickoffWorkshop ................................................................................................................ ..............................5 HazardIdentification .......................................................................................................... ..............................6 RiskAssessment .............................................................................................................. ..............................6 Mitigation Review and Development ............................................................................. ..............................6 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ............................................................................ ..............................7 Review................................................................................................................................ ..............................7 Incorporation of Existing Plans into the HMAP Process ..................................................... ..............................8 Incorporation of the HMAP into Other Planning Mechanisms ........................................... ..............................8 PlanReview and Plan Update ............................................................................................ .............................10 Timeline for Implementing Mitigation Actions ...................................................................... .............................10 Public and Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................................... .............................11 StakeholderInvolvement ................................................................................................... .............................11 PublicMeetings ................................................................................................................. .............................13 PublicParticipation Survey ............................................................................................ .............................14 Preparation Plan Hazard mitigation planning involves coordination with various constituents and stakeholders to develop a more disaster - resistant community. Section 2 provides an overview of the planning process including the identification of key steps and a detailed description of how stakeholders and the public were involved. Overview Of the lan Bexar County hired H2O Partners, Inc. (Consultant Team), to provide technical support and oversee the development of the Plan. The Consultant Team used the FEMA "Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide" (October 1, 2011), and the Local Mitigation Planning Handbook" (March 2013) to develop the Plan. The overall planning process is shown in Figure 2 -1 below. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE `- • FIVOT N Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, and the Consultant Team met in May 2016 to begin organizing resources, identify Planning Team members, and conduct a Capability Assessment. Planning Key members of H2O Partners, Inc. developed the Plan in conjunction with the Planning Team. The Planning Team was established using a direct representation model. Some of the responsibilities of the Planning Team included: completing Capability Assessment surveys, providing input regarding the identification of hazards, identifying mitigation goals, and developing mitigation strategies. An Executive Planning Team consisting of key personnel from each of the participating jurisdictions as well as Bexar County, shown in Table 2 -1, was formed to coordinate planning efforts and request input and participation in the planning process. Table 2 -2 reflects the Advisory Planning Team, consisting of additional representatives from area organizations and departments from the participating jurisdictions and Bexar County that participated throughout the planning process. Table 2 -1. Executive Planning Team Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017| Page 3 `- • FIRIT N Table 2 -2. Advisory Planning Team Additionally, a Stakeholder Group was invited to participate in the planning process via e -mail. The Consultant Team, Planning Team, and Stakeholder Group coordinated to identify mitigation goals, and develop mitigation strategies and actions for the Plan. Appendix A provides a complete listing of all participating Planning Team members and stakeholders by organization and title. Based on results of completed Capability Assessment, Bexar County and participating jurisdictions described methods for achieving future hazard mitigation measures by expanding existing capabilities. For example, several of the cities have an emergency manager on staff but no emergency operations plan or post disaster recovery plan in place. Other options for improving capabilities include the following: • Establishing Planning Team members with the authority to monitor the Plan and identify grant funding opportunities for expanding staff. • Identifying opportunities for cross - training or increasing the technical expertise of staff by attending free training available through FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) by monitoring classes and availability through preparetexas.org. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 `- • • • N • Reviewing current floodplain ordinances for opportunities to increase resiliency such as modifying permitting or building codes. • Developing ordinances that will require all new developments to conform to the highest mitigation standards. Sample hazard mitigation actions developed with similar hazard risk were shared at the meetings. These important discussions resulted in development of multiple mitigation actions that are included in the Plan to further mitigate risk from natural hazards in the future. The Planning Team developed hazard mitigation actions for mitigating risk from all of the hazards including potential flooding, hail, and extreme heat. The actions include but are not limited to drainage improvement projects, raising flood -prone low water crossings, installing warning systems at low water crossings, implementing policies for new building construction that encourages the incorporation of hail resistant and heat reflective materials, and educating citizens to practice hazard mitigation techniques. Planning Process The process used to prepare the Plan followed the four major steps included at Figure 2 -1. After the Planning Team was organized, a capability assessment was developed and distributed at the Kick -Off Workshop. Hazards were identified and assessed, and results associated with each of the hazards were provided at the Risk Assessment Workshop. Based on Bexar County's identified vulnerabilities, specific mitigation strategies were discussed and developed at the Mitigation Strategy Workshop. Finally, Plan maintenance and implementation procedures were developed and are included in Section 17. Participation of Planning Team members, stakeholders, and the public at each of the workshops is documented in Appendix E. At the Plan development workshops held throughout the planning process described herein, the following factors were taken into consideration: • The nature and magnitude of risks currently affecting the community; • Hazard mitigation goals to address current and expected conditions; • Whether current resources will be sufficient for implementing the Plan; • Implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, and coordination issues that may hinder development; • Anticipated outcomes; and • How Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, agencies, and partners will participate in implementing the Plan. Kickoff Workshop The Kickoff Workshop was held at Bexar County Elections Building on May 4, 2016. The initial workshop informed County officials and key department personnel about how the planning process pertained to their distinct roles and responsibilities and engaged stakeholder groups including, but not limited to the American Red Cross, the Port of San Antonio, the San Antonio Airport Fire and Police departments, and several universities. In addition to the kickoff presentation, participants received the following information: • Project overview regarding the planning process; • Public survey access information; • Hazard Ranking form; and • Capability Assessment survey for completion. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 `- • FIRIT N A risk ranking exercise was conducted at the Kickoff Workshop to get input from the Planning Team and stakeholders pertaining to various risks from a list of natural hazards affecting the planning area. Participants ranked hazards high to low in terms of perceived level of risk, frequency of occurrence, and potential impact. Hazard entification At the Kickoff Workshop, and through e -mail and phone correspondence, the Planning Team conducted preliminary hazard identification. The Planning Team in coordination with the Consultant Team reviewed and considered a full range of natural hazards. Once identified, the teams narrowed the list to significant hazards by reviewing hazards affecting the area as a whole, the 2013 State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, and initial study results from reputable sources such as federal and state agencies. Based on this initial analysis, the teams identified a total of ten natural hazards which pose a significant threat to the planning area, i,s ss essnie t An initial risk assessment for Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions was completed in August 2016 and results were presented to Planning Team members at the Risk Assessment Workshop held on August 31, 2016. At the workshop, the characteristics and consequences of each hazard were evaluated to determine the extent to which the planning area would be affected in terms of potential danger to property and citizens. Potential dollar losses from each hazard were estimated using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazards U.S. Multi- Hazards (MH) Model (HAZUS -MH) and other HAZUS -like modeling techniques. The assessments examined the impact of various hazards on the built environment, including general building stock (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), critical facilities, lifelines, and infrastructure. The resulting risk assessment profiled hazard events, provided information on previous occurrences, estimated probability of future events, and detailed the spatial extent and magnitude of impact on people and property. Each participant at the Risk Assessment Workshop was provided a risk ranking sheet that asked participants to rank hazards in terms of the probability or frequency of occurrence, extent of spatial impact, and the magnitude of impact. The results of the ranking sheets identified unique perspectives on varied risks throughout the planning area. The assessments were also used to set priorities for hazard mitigation actions based on potential loss of lives and dollar losses. A hazard profile and vulnerability analysis for each of the hazards can be found in Sections 4 through 14. Mitigation Review and Development Developing the Mitigation Strategy for the Plan involved identifying mitigation goals and new mitigation actions. A Mitigation Workshop was held at Bexar County Emergency Operations Center on November 1, 2016. In addition to the Planning Team, stakeholder groups were invited to attend the workshop. Regarding hazard mitigation actions, Workshop participants emphasized the desire for flood and hurricane projects. Additionally, the County and participating jurisdictions were proactive in identifying mitigation actions to lessen the risk of all the identified hazards included in the Plan. An inclusive and structured process was used to develop and prioritize new hazard mitigation actions for the Plan. The prioritization method was based on FEMA's STAPLE +E criteria and included social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental considerations. As a result, each Planning Team Member assigned an overall priority to each hazard mitigation action. The overall priority of each action is reflected in the hazard mitigation actions found in Section 16. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 `- • FIRIT N Planning Team Members then developed action plans identifying proposed actions, costs and benefits, the responsible organization(s), effects on new and existing buildings, implementation schedules, priorities, and potential funding sources. Specifically the process involved: • Listing optional hazard mitigation actions based on information collected from previous plan reviews, studies, and interviews with federal, state, and local officials. Workshop participants reviewed the optional mitigation actions and selected actions that were most applicable to their area of responsibility, cost - effective in reducing risk, easily implemented, and likely to receive institutional and community support. • Workshop participants inventoried federal and state funding sources that could assist in implementing the proposed hazard mitigation actions. Information was collected, including the program name, authority, purpose of the program, types of assistance and eligible projects, conditions on funding, types of hazards covered, matching requirements, application deadlines, and a point of contact. • Planning Team Members considered the benefits that would result from implementing the hazard mitigation actions compared to the cost of those projects. Although detailed cost - benefit analyses were beyond the scope of the Plan, Planning Team Members utilized economic evaluation as a determining factor between hazard mitigation actions. • Planning Team Members then selected and prioritized mitigation actions. Hazard mitigation actions identified in the process were made available to the Planning Team for review. The draft Plan was made available to the general public for review on Bexar County's website with the chance to comment via responding to Bexar County's Office of Emergency Management's email. Review Background information utilized during the planning process included various studies, plans, reports, and technical information from sources such as FEMA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), the U.S. Fire Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the Texas State Data Center, Texas Forest Service, the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), and local hazard assessments and plans. Section 4 and the hazard - specific sections of the Plan (Sections 5 -14) summarize the relevant background information. Specific background documents, including those from FEMA, provided information on hazard risk, hazard mitigation actions currently being implemented, and potential mitigation actions. Previous hazard events, occurrences, and descriptions were identified through NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI). Results of past hazard events were found through searching the NCEI. The USACE studies were reviewed for their assessment of risk and potential projects in the region. State Data Center documents were used to obtain population projections. The State Demographer webpages were reviewed for population and other projections and included in Section 3 of the Plan. Information from the Texas Forest Service was used to appropriately rank the wildfire hazard, and to help identify potential grant opportunities. Materials from FEMA and TDEM were reviewed for guidance on Plan development requirements. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Incorporation of Existing Plans into the TJMAP Process A Capability Assessment was completed by key Bexar County and participating jurisdictions' departments which provided information pertaining to existing plans, policies, ordinances and regulations to be integrated into the goals and objectives of the Plan. The relevant information was included in o master Capability Assessment, Appendix F. Existing projects and studies were utilized as starting point for discussing hazard mitigation actions among Planning and Consultant Team members. For example, the City of Heiotes completed a hydrologic and hydraulic study in 2013 of the French Creek Tributary B to identify modifications to the drainage infrastructure along Bandera Road near the intersection with Cedar Trail. Using the results and recommendations of the study, an action to install five (5) box culverts at the Bandera Road crossing of French Creek was included for the City of He|otes to alleviate flooding. Additionally, policies and ordinances were reviewed by several of the participating jurisdictions. These jurisdictions have included actions to develop and implement policies for new building construction that encourage wind, hail, and fire resistant building materials, and the inclusion of safe rooms to be required in new construction. Other plans were reviewed, such as Floodplain Management Plans and Storm Water Management Plans, to identify any additional mitigation actions. Finally, the 2O13 State of Texas Mitigation Plan Update, developed byTDEK8, was discussed in the initial planning meeting in order to develop a specific group of hazards to address in the planning effort. The 2013 State Plan Update was also used as a guidance document, along with FEMA materials, in the development of the Bexar County Plan. Incorporation of the }fMAP into (1H,er Planning Mechanisms Planning Team members will integrate implementation of the Plan with other planning mechanisms for Bexar County, such as the Emergency Operations Plan. Existing plans for Bexar County will be reviewed and incorporated into the Plan, as appropriate. This section discusses how the Plan will be implemented by Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions. |t also addresses how the Plan will be evaluated and improved over time, and how the public will continue to be involved in the hazard mitigation planning process. Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions will be responsible for implementing hazard mitigation actions contained in Section 16. Each hazard mitigation action has been assigned toa specific County and City department that is responsible for tracking and implementing the action. Afunding source has been listed for each identified hazard mitigation action and may be utilized to implement the action. An implementation time period has also been assigned toeach hazard mitigation action as an incentive and to determine whether actions are implemented on a timely basis. Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions will integrate hazard mitigation actions contained in the Plan with existing planning mechanisms such as Storm Water Management Plans and ordinances, Emergency Operations or Management Plans, Evacuation Plans, and other local and area planning efforts. Bexar County will work closely with area organizations to coordinate implementation of hazard mitigation actions that benefit the planning area in terms of financial and economic impact. Upon formal adoption of the Plan, Planning Team members from Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions will review existing plans along with building codes to guide development and ensure that hazard mitigation actions are implemented. Each of the jurisdictions will be responsible for coordinating periodic review of the Plan with members of the Advisory Planning Team to ensure integration of hazard mitigation strategies into these planning mechanisms and codes. The Planning Team will also conduct periodic reviews of various existing planning mechanisms and analyze the need for any amendments or updates in light of the approved Plan. Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions will ensure that future long-term planning objectives will contribute to the goals of the Plan 10 reduce the long-term risk to life and property from 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017| Page 8 `- • FIRIT S moderate and high risk hazards. Within one year of formal adoption of the Plan, existing planning mechanisms will be reviewed and analyzed as they pertain to the Plan. Planning Team members will review and revise, as necessary, the long -range goals and objectives in its strategic plan and budgets to ensure that they are consistent with the Plan. Furthermore, Bexar County will workwith neighboring jurisdictions to advance the goals of the Plan as it applies to ongoing, long -range planning goals and actions for mitigating risk to natural hazards throughout the planning area. Table 2 -3 identifies types of planning mechanisms and examples of methods for incorporating the Plan into other planning efforts. Table 2 -3. Examples of Methods of Incorporation Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 `- • FINIT S Appendix F provides an overview of Planning Team members' existing planning and regulatory capabilities to support implementation of mitigation strategy objectives. Appendix F also provides further analysis of how each intends to incorporate hazard mitigation actions into existing plans, policies, and the annual budget review as it pertains to prioritizing grant applications for funding and implementation of identified hazard mitigation projects. Plan vi and Plan Update As with the development of Plan, Bexar County will oversee the review and update process for relevance and to necessary make adjustments. At the beginning of each fiscal year, Planning Team Members will meet to evaluate the Plan and review other planning mechanisms to ensure consistency with long -range planning efforts. In addition, planning participants will also meet twice a year, by conference call or presentation, to re- evaluate prioritization of the hazard mitigation actions. Both the Executive Planning Team (Table A -1, Appendix A) and the Advisory Planning Team (Table A -2, Appendix A) will engage in discussions regarding a timeframe for how and when to implement each hazard mitigation action. Considerations include when the action will be started, how existing planning mechanisms' timelines affect implementation, and when the action should be fully implemented. Timeframes may be general, and there will be short, medium, and long term goals for implementation based on prioritization of each action, as identified on individual Hazard Mitigation Action worksheets included in the Plan for Bexar County and participating jurisdictions. Both the Executive and Advisory Planning Team will evaluate and prioritize the most suitable hazard mitigation actions for the community to implement. The timeline for implementation of actions will partially be directed by Bexar County's comprehensive planning process, budgetary constraints, and community needs. Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to addressing and implementing hazard mitigation actions that may be aligned with and integrated into the Plan. Overall, the Planning Team is in agreement that goals and actions of the Plan shall be aligned with the timeframe for implementation of hazard mitigation actions with respect to annual review and updates of existing plans and policies. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 `- • FIVOT N 111� 111 111111 1111111111 1111111q 11111��111 III An important component of hazard mitigation planning is public participation and stakeholder involvement. Input from individual citizens and the community as a whole provides the Planning Team with a greater understanding of local concerns and increases the likelihood of successfully implemented hazard mitigation actions. If citizens and stakeholders, such as local businesses, non - profits, hospitals, and schools are involved, they are more likely to gain a greater appreciation of the risks that hazards may present in their community and take steps to reduce or mitigate their impact. The public was involved in the development of Bexar County's Plan at different stages prior to official Plan approval and adoption. Public input was sought using three methods: (1) open public meetings; (2) survey instruments; and (3) making the draft Plan available for public review at Bexar County's website. The draft Plan was made available to the general public for review and comment on the Bexar County's website. The public was notified at the public meetings that the draft Plan would be available for review. No feedback was received on the draft Plan, although it was given on the public survey, and all relevant information was incorporated into the Plan. The Plan will be advertised and posted on Bexar County's website upon approval from FEMA. Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder involvement is essential to hazard mitigation planning since a wide range of stakeholders can provide input on specific topics and from various points of view. Throughout the planning process, members of community groups, local businesses, neighboring jurisdictions, schools, and hospitals were invited to participate in development of the Plan. The Stakeholder Group (Table A -3 in Appendix A, and Table 2 -4, below), included a broad range of representatives from both the public and private sector and served as a key component in Bexar County's outreach efforts for development of the Plan. Documentation of stakeholder meetings is found in Appendix E. A list of organizations invited to attend via e-mail is found in Table 2 -4. Table 2 -4. Stakeholder Working Group Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017| Page 12 `- • FIVOT N Stakeholders and participants from neighboring communities that attended the Planning Team and public meetings played a key role in the planning process. For example, drought was one of the major concerns to the stakeholders, so the County included an action to implement a policy that all new landscaping at City- and County -owned buildings to be as drought tolerant as possible, and existing unsuitable vegetation to be replaced with drought tolerant landscaping. Additionally, many jurisdictions added an action to educate their citizens of water conservation actions to reduce the waste of water during times of drought. Public Meetings A series of public meetings were held throughout the planning area to collect public and stakeholder input. Topics of discussion included the purpose of hazard mitigation, discussion of the planning process, and types of natural hazards. Representatives from area neighborhood associations and area residents were invited to participate. Additionally, Bexar County utilized social media sources including Facebook, Twitter, and the local media to increase public participation in the Plan development process. Documentation on the public meetings are found in Appendix E. Public meetings were held on the following dates and locations: • May 4, 2016, Bexar County Elections Building Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 • August ]1,%O16 Bexar County Emergency Operations Center • November 1, 2016, Bexar County Emergency Operations Center Public Participation Survey In addition to public meetings, the Planning and Consultant Teams developed a public survey designed to solicit public input during the planning process from citizens and stakeholders and to obtain data regarding the identification of any potential hazard mitigation actions or problem areas. The survey was promoted bylocal officials and a link to the survey was posted onBexar County's webdte. A total of114 surveys were completed online. The survey results are analyzed in Appendix B. 8exar County reviewed the input from the surveys and decided which information to incorporate into the Plan as hazard mitigation actions. For example, many citizens mentioned concerns about flooding and suggested runoff/food mitigation as potential steps the jurisdictions could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future hazard damages. |n response to public input several hazard mitigation actions were added tothe Plan to implement drainage improvements and flood control measures throughout the County and participating jurisdictions, including detention ponds, flood diversion improvements, and conveyance improvements. Programs for routinely cleaning debris from support bracing under bridges and drainage waterways to reduce debris in waterways were also added to the Plan. 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017| Page 14 Section 3: County Profile Overview................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Populationand Demographics ................................................................................................ ..............................4 PopulationGrowth ............................................................................................................. ..............................5 FutureDevelopment ............................................................................................................... ..............................6 EconomicImpact .................................................................................................................... ..............................7 Existing and Future Land Use and Development Trends ........................................................ ..............................7 BuildingPermits .................................................................................................................. ..............................8 Bexar County was formed in December 1836 when Texas was an independent republic. Texas was formally admitted to the United States as its 281h state in December 1845, and in the 1860, the state partitioned Bexar County into 128 separate counties, including present -day Bexar County. The County has a total area of 1,256 square miles, of which 1,240 square miles is land and 16 square miles (1.3%) is water. The County consists of several cities and towns, a few census - designated places, and unincorporated areas. The following cities and towns are participating within this plan and are considered part of the planning area: the City of Alamo Heights, the City of Balcones Heights, the City of Castle Hills, the City of China Grove, the City of Converse, the City of Elmendorf, the City of Fair Oaks Ranch, the City of Grey Forest, the City of Helotes, the City of Hill Country Village, the Town of Hollywood Park, the City of Kirby, the City of Leon Valley, the City of Live Oak, the City of Olmos Park, the City of Saint Hedwig, the City of Sandy Oaks, the City of Schertz, the City of Shavano Park, the City of Somerset, the City of Terrell Hills, the City of University City, the City of Von Ormy, and the City of Windcrest. The City of San Antonio is also located within Bexar County, but they have written their own Hazard Mitigation Action Plan; therefore, the City of San Antonio is not a participating jurisdiction within the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. The Balcones Escarpment bisects the county from west to northeast, and to the north of the escarpment are the rocky hills, springs, and canyons of the Texas Hill Country. South of the escarpment are Blackland Prairie and the South Texas plains. The San Antonio River rises from springs north of downtown San Antonio and flows southward and southeastward through the county. Figure 3 -1 shows the general location of Bexar County, along with the Cities that are located within the County. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 3: County Profile Figure 3 -1. Location of Bexar County Planning Area Figure 3 -2 shows the Bexar County Study Area, including the participating jurisdictions that are covered in the risk assessment analysis of the Plan. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 3: County Profile Figure 3 -2. Bexar County Study Area Provided in Table 3 -1 below is a listing of the jurisdictions in Bexar County that participated in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 3 -1. Participating Jurisdictions Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 3: County Profile Population • Dernographicl In the official Census population count, as of April 1, 2010, Bexar County had a population of 1,714,773 residents. By July 2014, the number had grown to 1,860,274, and by July 2015, the population was 1,897,753. Table 3 -2 provides the population distribution by jurisdiction within Bexar County.' Between official U.S. Census population counts, the estimate uses a formula based on new residential building permits and household size. It is simply an estimate and there are many variables involved in achieving an accurate estimation of people living in a given area at a given time. Table 3 -2. Population Distribution by Jurisdiction 0.06% 0.77% 1,484 1,615 I Source: http: / /www. census. gov/ quickfacts /table/PST045215/48029,00 Z The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated on May 10, 2014, therefore there is no data for the 2010 census. The total population is from a 2009 -2013 American Community Survey Estimate, and has been subtracted from the Unincorporated Bexar County total population. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 3: County Profile Population Growth The official 2010 Bexar County population is 1,714,773. Overall, Bexar County experienced an increase in population between 1980 and 2010 by 73.39 %, or an increase by 725,802 people. Castle Hills and Hollywood Park experienced a decrease in their population from 1980 to 2010, while the rest of the jurisdictions experienced a population growth. Between 2000 and 2010, sixteen jurisdictions experienced a population growth, while eight jurisdictions experienced a decrease in the population. Table 3 -3 provides historic growth rates in Bexar County. Table 3 -3. Population for Bexar County, 1980 -20104 3 The City of San Antonio is not participating in the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan, but has been included on the Population Distributed by Jurisdiction table. 4 Not enough data was available to show the population growth from 1980 for the City of Fair Oaks Ranch, the City of Helotes, and the City of St. Hedwig. Not enough data was available for the City of Sandy Oaks, and the City of Von Ormy to show the population growth. Data was analyzed when available. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 3: County Profile To better understand how future growth and development in the County might affect hazard vulnerability, it is useful to consider population growth, occupied and vacant land, the potential for future development in hazard areas, and current planning and growth management efforts. This section includes an analysis of the projected population change, the number of permits that have been issued throughout the county, and economic impacts. Population projections from 2010 to 2040 are listed in Table 3 -4, as provided by the Office of the State Demographer, Texas State Data Center, and the Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research. Population projections are based on a 0.5 scenario growth rate, which is 50 percent of the population growth rate that occurred during 2000 -2010. This information is only available at the County level; however, the population projection shows an increase in population density for the County, which would mean overall growth for the County. 5 The City of San Antonio is not participating in the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan, but has been included on the Population for Bexar County, 1980 -2010 table. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 3: County Profile Table 3 -4. Bexar County Population Projections Building and maintaining infrastructure depends on the economy, and therefore, protecting infrastructure from risk due to natural hazards in the planning area is important to Bexar County. Whether it's expanding culverts under a road that washes out during flash flooding, shuttering a fire station, or flood - proofing a wastewater facility, infrastructure must be mitigated from natural hazards in order to continue providing essential utility and emergency response services in a fast - growing planning area. Major employers in the area are critical to the health of the economy, as well as effective transportation connectivity. Bexar County has a Department of Community Resources (DCR) that invests and leverages federal, state, and local resources in order to ensure that citizens receive the services that will improve their quality of life while making an economic impact in Bexar County. The Community Development and Housing Division of the Department of Community Resources administers funds that can be used in the unincorporated areas of Bexar County and participating jurisdictions. The County funds are used to improve infrastructure, provide public services, build affordable housing and rehabilitate existing housing that meets eligibility criteria. 18 of the participating jurisdictions of this plan participate in this Division. • ,� i * * mall needed congestion relief in several highly traveled corridors within the County. The following jurisdictions have a Master or Comprehensive Plan in place: the City of Alamo Heights, the City of Converse, the City of Elmendorf, the City of Grey Forest, the City of Helotes, the City of Hill Country Village, the City of Leon Valley, the City of Olmos Park, the City of Saint Hedwig, the City of Schertz, the City of Shavano Park, the City of Somerset, the City of Terrell Hills, the City of Universal City, the City of Von Ormy, and the City of Windcrest. These plans are part of a continuous process to provide an environment for the citizens and to consider the general desire of the community to conserve, preserve, and protect the natural environment of their jurisdiction. These plans are used to guide individuals in making decisions which affect the jurisdiction with the understanding of the long term effects. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 3: County Profile Building er its Building permits indicate what types of buildings are being constructed and their relative uses. Table 3 -5 lists the number of residential building permits for Bexar County that have been granted between 1996 and 2015. The data includes all sizes of family homes for reported permits, as well as the construction costs, to show the potential increase in vulnerability of structures to the various hazards reviewed in the risk assessment. The increase in vulnerability can be attributed to the higher construction costs that would be factored into repairing or replacing a structure using current market values. Permits are reported annually in September; data reflects permits for consecutive years from 2010 to 2015 to demonstrate growth rates. Table 3 -5. County Residential Building Permits6 7,986 4,404 6 Source: http: / /censtats.census.gov /cgi- bin /bldgprmt /bidgdisp.pi Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 4: Risk Overview HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Natural Hazards and Climate Change ..................................................................................... ..............................3 Overview of Hazard Analysis ................................................................................................... ..............................5 HazardRanking ....................................................................................................................... ..............................6 Section 4 is the first phase of the Risk Assessment, providing background information for the hazard identification process and descriptions for the hazards identified. The Risk Assessment continues with Sections 5 through 14, which include hazard descriptions and vulnerability assessments. Upon a review of the full range of natural hazards suggested under FEMA planning guidance, Bexar County and the participating jurisdictions identified ten natural hazards that are addressed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Of the hazards identified, nine natural hazards and one quasi - technological hazard (dam failure) were identified as significant, as shown in Table 4 -1. The hazards were identified through input from Planning Team members and a review of the current 2013 State of Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (State Plan Update). Readily available online information from reputable sources such as federal and state agencies were also evaluated and utilized to supplement information as needed. In general, there are three main categories of hazards: atmospheric, hydrologic, and technological. Atmospheric hazards are events or incidents associated with weather generated phenomenon. Atmospheric hazards that have been identified as significant for the Bexar County Planning area include extreme heat, hail, hurricane, thunderstorm wind, tornado, and winter storm (Table 4 -1). Hydrologic hazards are events or incidents associated with water related damage and account for over 75 percent of Federal disaster declarations in the United States. Hydrologic hazards identified as significant for the planning area include flood and drought. Technological hazards refers to the origins of incidents that can arise from human activities, such as the construction and maintenance of dams. They are distinctfrom natural hazards primarily because they originate from human activity. The risks presented by natural hazards may be increased or decreased as a result of human activity, however they are not inherently human - induced. Therefore, dam failure is classified as a quasi - technological hazard and referred to as "technological," in Table 4 -1 for purposes of description. For the Risk Assessment, the wildfire hazard is considered "other," since a wildfire may be natural or human - caused, and is not considered atmospheric or hydrologic. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 4: Risk Overview Table 4 -1. Hazard Descriptions Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 4: Risk Overview Hazards that weren't considered significant and were not included in the Plan are located in Table 4 -2, along with the evaluation process used for determining the significance of each of these hazards. Hazards not identified for inclusion at this time may be addressed during future evaluations and updates. Table 4 -2. Hazard Identification Process Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 4: Risk Overview Climate Natural Hazards and Climate change is defined as a long -term hazard which can increase or decrease the risk of other weather hazards. It directly endangers property due to sea level rise and biological organisms due to habitat destruction. Global climate change is expected to exacerbate the risks of certain types of natural hazards impacted through rising sea levels, warmer ocean temperatures, higher humidity, the possibility of stronger storms, and an increase in wind and flood damages due to storm surges. While sea level rise is a natural phenomenon and has been occurring for several thousand years, the general scientific consensus is that the rate has increased in the past 200 years, from 0.5 millimeters per year to 2 millimeters per year. Texas is considered one of the more vulnerable states in the U.S. to both abrupt climate changes and to the impact of gradual climate changes to the natural and built environments. Mega- droughts can trigger abrupt changes to regional ecosystems and the water cycle, drastically increase extreme summer temperature and fire risk, and reduce availability of water resources, as Texas experienced during 2011 -2012. Paleoclimate records also show that the climate over Texas had large changes between periods of frequent mega- droughts and the periods of mild droughts that Texas is currently experiencing. While the cause of these fluctuations is unclear, it would be wise to anticipate that such changes could occur again, and may even be occurring now. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 4: Risk Overview # - rM • ' y r The methodologies utilized to develop the Risk Assessment are FEMA's loss estimation software, Hazards United States Multi- Hazards (HAZUS -MH), and a statistical approach. Both methodologies provide an estimate of potential impact by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. HAZUS -MH is FEMA's standardized loss estimation software program built upon an integrated geographic information system (GIS) platform. HAZUS -MH was utilized in the Risk Assessment to develop regional profiles and estimate losses due to damage caused by a flood event for the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The HAZUS -MH software and resulting Risk Assessment methodology are parametric, and distinct hazard and inventory parameters (e.g., wind speed and building types) are modeled to determine the impact (e.g., damages and losses) on the built environment. Records retrieved from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and Spatial Hazard Events & Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS) were reported for the Bexar County Planning Area, including the participating jurisdictions. Remaining records identifying the occurrence of hazard events in the planning area and the maximum recorded magnitude of each event were also evaluated. The four general parameters that are described for each hazard in the Risk Assessment include frequency of return, approximate annualized losses, a description of general vulnerability, and a statement of the hazard's impact. Frequency of return was calculated by dividing the number of events in the recorded time period for each hazard by the overall time period that the resource database was recording events. Frequency of return statements are defined in Table 4 -3, and impact statements are defined in Table 4 -4 below. Table 4 -3. Frequency of Return Statements Table 4 -4. Impact Statements Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 4: Risk Overview Each of the hazard profiles includes a description of a general Vulnerability Assessment. Vulnerability is the total of assets that are subject to damages from a hazard, based on historic recorded damages. Assets in the region were inventoried and defined in hazard zones where appropriate. The total amount of damages, including property and crop damages, for each hazard is divided by the total number of assets (building value totals) in that community to determine the percentage of damage that each hazard can cause to the community. Hazard Vulnerability for Bexar County was reviewed based on recent development changes that occurred throughout the County. To better understand how future growth and development in the County might affect hazard vulnerability, it is useful to consider population growth, occupied and vacant land, the potential for future development in hazard areas, and current planning and growth management efforts. Once loss estimates and vulnerability were known, an impact statement was applied to relate the potential impact of the hazard on the assets within the area of impact. Ranking Hazard Table 4 -5 portrays the results of the County's self- assessment for hazard ranking, based on the preliminary results of the risk assessment presented at the Risk Assessment Workshop. This table also takes into account local knowledge regarding frequency of occurrence and the potential impact of each hazard. Table 4 -5. Hazard Risk Ranking 1 The majority of jurisdictions have a Limited potential severity of impact, with the exception of Bexar County and the City of Helotes. Bexar County has a Substantial potential severity of impact and the City of Helotes has a Major potential severity of impact. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 4: Risk Overview Z While the potential severity of impact for the Bexar County planning area is considered minor, the historical fatalities support a substantial severity of impact. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 5: Extreme Heat HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 HistoricalOccurrences ............................................................................................................ ..............................4 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 Assessmentof Impacts ....................................................................................................... ..............................8 Hazard DescriDtion Extreme heat is the condition whereby temperatures hover ten degrees or more above the average high temperature in a region for an extended period. Extreme heat during the summer months is a common occurrence throughout the State of Texas, and Bexar County is no exception. Severe and excessive summer heat is characterized by a combination of exceptionally high temperatures and humidity. When these conditions persist over a period of time, it is defined as a heat wave. Bexar County and all participating jurisdictions typically experience extended heat waves. Although heat can damage buildings and facilities, it presents a more significant threat to the safety and welfare of citizens. The major human risks associated with severe summer heat include: heat cramps; sunburn; dehydration; fatigue; heat exhaustion; and even heat stroke. The most vulnerable populations to heat casualties are children and the elderly or infirmed, who frequently live on low fixed incomes and cannot afford to run air - conditioning on a regular basis. This population is sometimes isolated, with no immediate family or friends to look out for their well- being. I_ #.,1. Nine heat related deaths have been reported in the Bexar County area, including one in 2000, two in 2003, one in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008 and two in 20091. In addition, there have been heat related deaths reported in neighboring counties, including Atascosa and Guadalupe County. There is no specific geographic scope to the extreme heat hazard. Extreme heat could occur anywhere within the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. i Sources: Texas Department of State Health Services (2008) and National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (2017) MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 5: Extreme Heat MR-71V The magnitude or intensity of an extreme heat event is measured according to temperature in relation to the percentage of humidity. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this relationship is referred to as the "Heat Index," and is depicted in Figure 5 -1. This index measures how hot it feels outside when humidity is combined with high temperatures. 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 ar 80 85 90 95 100 Temperatures (°F) Figure 5 -1. Extent Scale for Extreme Summer Heat2 40 45 50 a 55 60 E 65 n 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Temperatures ('F) 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 ro 75 ai c 80 85 Temperatures ff) 40 45 50 0 55 60 E 65 70 ro 75 Z 80 85 90 95 100 Likelihood of Heat Disorders with Prolonged Exposure or Strenuous ,activity Temperatures ( °F) The Extent Scale in Figure 5 -1 displays varying categories of caution depending on the relative humidity combined with the temperature. For example, when the temperature is at 90 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F) or lower, caution should be exercised if the humidity level is at or above 40 percent. The shaded zones on the chart indicate varying symptoms or disorders that could occur depending on the magnitude or intensity of the event. "Caution" is the first category of intensity and it indicates when fatigue due to heat exposure is possible. "Extreme Caution" indicates that sunstroke, muscle cramps, or heat exhaustion are possible, and a "Danger" level means that these symptoms are likely. "Extreme Danger" indicates that heat stroke is likely. The National Weather Service (NWS) initiates alerts based on the Heat Index as shown in Table 5 -1. z Source: NOAA Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 5: Extreme Heat Table 5 -1. Heat Index & Warnings The Bexar County planning area is comprised of gently rolling terrain and is located in South Central Texas between the Edwards Plateau to the northwest and the Gulf Coastal Plains to the southeast. Northwest of the area, the terrain slopes upward to the Edwards Plateau, and to the southeast it slopes downward to the Gulf Coastal Plains. Soils are black -land clay and silt loam on the Plains and thin limestone soils on the Edwards Plateau. The area's gently rolling terrain is dotted with oak trees, mesquite, and cacti. Due to its geography, and its warm, muggy, and semitropical climate with hot summers, the Bexar County planning area can expect an extreme heat event each summer. Citizens, especially children and the elderly, should exercise caution by staying out of the heat for prolonged periods when a heat advisory or excessive heat warning is issued. Also at risk are those working or remaining outdoors. Figure 5 -2 displays the average daily maximum heat index as derived from NOAA and based on data compiled from 1838 to 2015. The black circle shows the Bexar County area. The brown and red colors indicate a daily maximum heat index of 95- 105 °F. The Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, could experience extreme heat from 907 to 1057 and should mitigate to the extent of "danger," which can include sunstroke, muscle cramps, heat exhaustion, and potential heatstroke with prolonged exposure. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 5: Extreme Heat 5; Figure 5 -2. Average Daily Maximum Heat Index Days3 i Every summer, the hazard of heat related illness becomes a significant public health issue throughout much of the United States. Mortality from all causes increases during heat waves, and excessive heat is an important contributing factor to deaths from other causes, particularly among the elderly. Preliminary data suggest that by August 21, 2009, record high summer temperatures in Texas resulted in more than 120 heat related deaths statewide. Table 5 -2 depicts historical occurrences of mortality from heat from 1994 to 2004, sourced from the Texas Department of State Health Services, and 2005 to 2016, sourced from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) database. Table 5 -2. Extreme Heat Related Deaths in Bexar County, 1994 -2016 3 Source: NCEI; the black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 5: Extreme Heat Because the Texas Department of State Health Services reports on total events statewide, previous occurrences for extreme heat are derived from the NCEI database. According to heat related incidents located solely within Bexar County, there are three heat waves4on record for Bexar County (Table 5 -3). Historical extreme heat information, as provided by the NCEI, shows extreme heat activity across a multi- county forecast area for each event. The appropriate percentage of the total property and crop damage reported for the entire forecast area has been allocated to each county impacted by each event. All participating jurisdictions are reported under Bexar County events. Only extreme heat events that have been reported have been factored into this Risk Assessment. It is likely additional extreme heat occurrences have gone unreported before and during the recording period. Table 5 -3. Historical Extreme Heat Events, 1996 -2016 4 Even though Bexar County experiences heat waves each summer, NCEI data only records events reported. Based on reports, only three events are on record. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 5: Extreme Heat I• According to historical records, the Bexar County planning area has experienced 3 events in a 21 year reporting period. This provides a frequency of occurrence of 1 event approximately every 5 years. This frequency supports an occasional probability of future events for the entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. Vulnerability There is no defined geographic boundary for extreme heat events. While all of Bexar County is exposed to extreme temperatures, existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities are not likely to sustain significant damage from extreme heat events. Therefore, any estimated property losses associated with the extreme heat hazard are anticipated to be minimal across the area. However, extreme temperatures do present a significant threat to life and safety for the population of the county as a whole. For example, heat casualties are typically caused by a lack of adequate air - conditioning or heat exhaustion. The most vulnerable populations to heat casualties are children or the elderly or infirmed, who frequently live on low fixed incomes and cannot afford to run air - conditioning on a regular basis. This population is sometimes isolated, with no immediate family or friends to look out for their well- being. Populations over the age of 65 in the Bexar County planning area are estimated at 11% of the total population and children under the age of 5 exceed 7 %, constituting an estimated total of 333,6985 potentially vulnerable residents in the planning area based on age (Table 5 -4). Table 5 -4. Populations at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 5 Source: US Census Bureau 2015 data for Bexar County Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 5: Extreme Heat Another segment of the population at risk are those whose jobs consist of strenuous labor outdoors. During times of extreme heat, livestock and crops can become stressed, decreasing in quality or in production. Extreme high temperatures can have significant secondary impacts, leading to droughts, water shortages, increased fire danger, and prompt excessive demands for energy. The possibility of rolling blackouts increases with unseasonably high temperatures in what is a normally mild month with low power demands. Typically more than 12 hours of warning time would be given before the onset of an extreme heat event. Only minor property damage would result. The potential impact of excessive summer heat is considered "Minor," as injuries and /or illnesses do not result in permanent disability. In terms of vulnerability to structures, the impact from extreme heat would be negligible. It is possible that critical facilities and infrastructure could be shut down for 24 hours if cooling units are running constantly, leading to a temporary power outage. Less than 10 percent of residential and commercial property could be damaged if extreme heat events lead to structure fires. 6 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 5: Extreme Heat The potential impact of extreme heat for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can be considered "Minor," resulting in few injuries and minimal disruption to the quality of life. Based on historical records over a 21 year period, annualized losses for the entire Bexar County planning area are negligible. Assessment of Impacts The greatest risk from extreme heat is to public health and safety. Potential impacts to the community may include: • Vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and infants, can face serious or life- threatening health problems from exposure to extreme heat including hyperthermia; heat cramps; heat exhaustion; and heat stroke (or sunstroke). • Response personnel including utility workers, public works personnel, and any other professions where individuals are required to work outside, are more subject to extreme heat related illnesses since their exposure would typically be greater. • High energy demand periods can outpace the supply of energy, potentially creating the need for rolling brownouts, which would elevate the risk of illness to vulnerable residents. • Highways and roads may be damaged by excessive heat, causing asphalt roads to soften and concrete roads to shift or buckle. • Vehicle engines and cooling systems typically run harder during extreme heat events, resulting in increases in mechanical failures. • Extreme heat events during times of drought can exacerbate the environmental impacts associated with drought, decreasing water and air quality, and further degrading wildlife habitat. • Extreme heat increases ground -level ozone (smog), escalating the risk of respiratory illnesses. • Tourism and recreational activities predominant in the Sabine Lake area and Sea Rim State Park may be negatively impacted during extreme heat events, reducing seasonal revenue. • Food suppliers can anticipate an increase in food costs due to increases in production costs and crop and livestock losses. • Fisheries may be negatively impacted by extreme heat, suffering damage to fish habitats (either natural or man - made), and a loss of fish and /or other aquatic organisms due to decreased water flows or availability. • Negatively impacted water suppliers may face increased costs resulting from the transport of water or developing supplemental water resources. • Outdoor activities may see an increase in injury or illness during extreme heat events. The economic and financial impacts of extreme heat on the community will depend on the duration of the event, demand for energy, drought associated with extreme heat, and many other factors. The level of preparedness and the amount of planning done by the jurisdiction, local businesses, and citizens will impact the overall economic and financial conditions before, during, and after an extreme heat event. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 6: Drought HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................2 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 HistoricalOccurrences ............................................................................................................ ..............................4 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................6 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 Assessmentof Impacts ....................................................................................................... ..............................8 Drought is a period of time without substantial rainfall that persists from one year to the next. Drought is a normal part of virtually all climatic regions, including areas with high and low average rainfall. Drought is the consequence of anticipated natural precipitation reduction over an extended period of time, usually a season or more in length. Droughts can be classified as meteorological, hydrologic, agricultural, and socioeconomic. Table 6 -1 presents definitions for these different types of drought. Table 6 -1. Drought Classification Definitions' Droughts are one of the most complex of all natural hazards as it is difficult to determine their precise beginning or end. In addition, droughts can lead to other hazards such as extreme heat and wildfires. Their impact on wildlife and area farming is enormous, often killing crops, grazing land, edible plants, and even in severe cases, trees. A secondary hazard to drought is wildfire because dying vegetation serves as a prime ignition source. Therefore, a heat wave combined with a drought is a very dangerous situation. I Source: Multi- Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment: A Cornerstone of the National Mitigation Strategy, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE ►' � / M. Droughts occur regularly throughout Texas and Bexar County, and are a frequent condition. However, they can vary greatly in their intensity and duration. The Drought Monitor (Figure 6 -1) shows the study region is currently experiencing normal conditions. The planning area has experienced abnormally dry to exceptional drought conditions over the last ten years. There is no distinct geographic boundary to drought; therefore, it can occur equally throughout the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. Figure 6 -1. U.S. Drought Monitor, January 2017 U.S. Drought Monitor Texas I January 10, 2017 (Released Thursday, Jan. 12,= 2017)' Valid 7 a.m. EST Drouar.t. COndi Lions: (P ercent.Area) lWer75itV. DO Ab norm ally.. Dry D3ExtremeDrought D1. Moderate Drought D4Exceptional Drought D2. Severe . Drought The Drought h4onitor focuses on broad- scalei ondbons: Loc af coodlhons may vary ; See: accompanying text summary for forecast statenY'nts.. Author: David Miskiits NOAA/NK'S /NCEP /CPC USDA http:iidroughtmonitor.uni.edu/ The Palmer Drought Index is used to measure the extent of drought by measuring the duration and intensity of long -term drought- inducing circulation patterns. Long -term drought is cumulative, with the intensity of drought during the current month dependent upon the current weather patterns, plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop. Table 6 -2 depicts magnitude of drought, while Table 6 -3 describes the classification descriptions. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 None DO D4 DI-D4 L1`2 Current 74.87. 25.13 6.04 0:00. 0.14: .6:00 Last VftBk 01.50 18.50 6..29 :1.97 . 0.04 .0.00 awmar 3 Months Ago 7117 21 93 4:40. 0 Or 0.00 0:00 IMI12WG Start of Calendar Year 81.50 18.50 6.29 1:97 0.04. 0.00 _ 1woa r Start of Water Year 94.83 5:17 0.62 0:00 0.00 0.00 .9,2712016. One Yearan2no�Ago, ,98,31- 1.691. 0:00. 0.00: :.0:00. 0:00 6 lWer75itV. DO Ab norm ally.. Dry D3ExtremeDrought D1. Moderate Drought D4Exceptional Drought D2. Severe . Drought The Drought h4onitor focuses on broad- scalei ondbons: Loc af coodlhons may vary ; See: accompanying text summary for forecast statenY'nts.. Author: David Miskiits NOAA/NK'S /NCEP /CPC USDA http:iidroughtmonitor.uni.edu/ The Palmer Drought Index is used to measure the extent of drought by measuring the duration and intensity of long -term drought- inducing circulation patterns. Long -term drought is cumulative, with the intensity of drought during the current month dependent upon the current weather patterns, plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop. Table 6 -2 depicts magnitude of drought, while Table 6 -3 describes the classification descriptions. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 ►' � / M. Table 6 -2. Palmer Drought Index Table 6 -3. Palmer Drought Category DescriptionS2 Drought is monitored nationwide by the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). Indicators are used to describe broad scale drought conditions across the United States. Indicators correspond to the intensity of drought. Based on the historical occurrences for drought and the location of Bexar County, the entire planning area and all participating jurisdictions can anticipate a range of drought from abnormally dry to exceptional, or DO to D4 based on the Palmer Drought Category. z Source: National Drought Mitigation Center Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 ►' � / M. Bexar County may typically experience a severe drought. Tables 6 -4 and 6 -5 list historical events that have occurred in Bexar County, as reported in the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI). Historical drought information, as provided by the NCEI, shows drought activity across a multi- county forecast area for each event. The appropriate percentage of the total property and crop damage reported for the entire forecast area has been allocated to each county impacted by the event. Historical drought data for all participating jurisdictions in the Bexar County planning area is provided on a County -wide basis, per the NCEI database. Table 6 -4. Historical Drought Years, 1996 -2016 Table 6 -5. Historical Drought Events, 1996 -20163 3 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 ►' � / M. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 ►' � / M. Significant as Events January — December, 1996 — Bexar County Through the first four months of 1996, rainfall accumulations were between 1 and 2 inches across the area. Drought persisted across the southwestern part of South Central Texas through the remainder of the year and through the first two months of 1997. July — October, 2000 — Bexar County The severe drought that began early in 2000 across the southwest parts of South Central Texas spread again in July to cover all but the southeast counties. Little to no rain was recorded across these counties in July, and nearly all river levels were reported to be low. Aquifer levels and lake levels were approaching all time low readings, and strong conservation measures were enacted across much of the area. Numerous small creeks and streams ceased flowing. Agricultural activities were essentially brought to a halt. August — November, 2014 — Bexar County Most of the region had below normal precipitation and much of that area had 50 percent or less than normal precipitation. As a result, Bandera, Kendall, Kerr, and Medina Counties worsened to extreme drought category (Stage D3) and Bastrop, Bexar, Burnet, Caldwell, Comal, DeWitt, Guadalupe, Hays, Real, and Travis Counties moved into severe category (Stage D2). Gillespie and Val Verde Counties remained in Stage D3 while Blanco, Edwards, and Llano Counties continued in Stage D2. Fire danger was moderate to high across the area at the end of August. The seven day stream flow averages at the end of the month were below normal (10 -24 percent) for the Upper San Antonio, Upper Colorado, Medina, and Frio River basins. The Lower Colorado and Guadalupe River Basins were much below normal (less than 10 percent). Area lakes and reservoirs continued well below normal pool elevations. Based on available records of historic events, there have been 7 extended time periods of drought within a 21 year reporting period, which provides a frequency of occurrence of 1 event approximately every year. This frequency supports a highly likely probability of future events. All participating jurisdictions are included under the county. Loss estimates were based on 21 years of statistical data from the NCEI. A drought event frequency- impact was then developed to determine an impact profile on agriculture products and estimate potential losses due to drought in the area. Table 6 -6 shows annualized exposure. Table 6 -6. Drought Event Damage Totals, 1996 -2016 Drought impacts large areas and crosses jurisdictional boundaries. All existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations are exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. However, drought impacts are Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 ►' � / M. mostly experienced in water shortages and crop /livestock losses on agricultural lands and typically have no impact on buildings. In terms of vulnerability, population, agriculture, property, and environment are all vulnerable to drought. The average person will survive only a few days without water, and this timeframe can be drastically shortened for people with more fragile health — typically children, the elderly, and the ill. Populations over the age of 65 in the Bexar County planning area are estimated at 11% of the total population and children under the age of 5 exceed 7% — an estimated total of 333,6984 potentially vulnerable residents in the planning area based on age (Table 6 -7). Table 6 -7. Populations at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 data for Bexar County Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 ►' � / M. The population is also vulnerable to food shortages when drought conditions exist and potable water is in short supply. Potable water is used for drinking, sanitation, patient care, sterilization, equipment, heating and cooling systems, and many other essential functions in medical facilities. All residents in the Bexar County planning area could be adversely affected by drought conditions, which could limit water supplies and present health threats. Furthermore, during summer drought, or hot and dry conditions, elderly persons, small children, infants, and the chronically ill who do not have adequate cooling units in their homes may become more vulnerable to injury and /or death. The economic impact of droughts can be significant as it produces a complex web of effects that span many sectors of the economy and reach well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. This complexity exists because water is integral to our ability to produce goods and provide services. If droughts extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impact can be significant. Habitat damage is a vulnerability of the environment during periods of drought, for both aquatic and terrestrial species. The environment also becomes vulnerable during periods of extreme or prolonged drought due to severe erosion and land degradation. The impact of droughts experienced in the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, has resulted in 0 injuries and fatalities. This supports a "limited" severity of impact, meaning injuries and /or illnesses are treatable with first aid, shutdown of facilities and services for 24 hours or less, and less than 10 percent of property is destroyed or sustains major damage. Annualized loss over the 21 -year reporting period in Bexar County is negligible. Assessment of Impacts The Drought Impact Reporter was developed in 2005 by the University of Nebraska - Lincoln to provide a national database of drought impacts. Droughts can have an impact on: agriculture; business and industry; energy; fire; plants and wildlife; relief, response, and restrictions; society and public health; tourism and recreation; and water supply and quality. Table 6 -8 lists the drought impacts for Bexar County from 2005 to 2016, based on reports received by the Drought Impact Reporter. 5 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 ►' � / M. Table 6 -8. Drought Impacts, 2005 -2016 Drought has the potential to impact people in the Bexar County planning area. While it is rare that drought, in and of itself, leads to a direct risk to the health and safety of people in the U.S., severe water shortages could result in inadequate supply for human needs. Drought is also frequently associated with a variety of impacts, including: • Recreational activities at Braunig Lake, Calaveras Lake, and Mitchell Lake that rely on water may be curtailed, such as hunting and fishing, resulting in fewer tourists and lower revenue. • The Government Canyon State Natural Area may be especially vulnerable as severe and prolonged drought can result in the reduction of a species, or cause the extinction of a species altogether. • Plant life will suffer from long -term drought. Wind and erosion will also pose a threat to plant life as soil quality will decline. • The number of health - related low -flow issues (e.g., diminished sewage flows, increased pollution concentrations, reduced firefighting capacity, and cross - connection contamination) will increase as the drought intensifies. • Public safety risk from forest /range /wildfires will increase as water availability and /or pressure decreases. • Respiratory ailments may increase as the air quality decreases. • There may be an increase in disease due to wildlife concentrations (e.g., rabies, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lyme disease). • Jurisdictions and residents may disagree over water use /water rights, creating conflict. • Political conflicts may increase between municipalities, counties, states, and regions. • Water management conflicts may arise between competing interests. • Increased law enforcement activities may be required to enforce water restrictions. • Severe water shortages could result in inadequate supply for human needs as well as lower quality of water for consumption. • Firefighters may have limited water resources to aid in firefighting and suppression activities, increasing risk to lives and property. • There is an increased risk for wildfires and dust storms during drought. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 ►' � / M. • The community may need increased operational costs to enforce water restriction or rationing. • Prolonged drought can lead to increases in illness and disease related to drought. • Utility providers can see decreases in revenue as water supplies diminish. • Utilities providers may cut back energy generation and service to their customers in order to prioritize critical service needs. • Hydroelectric power generation facilities and infrastructure would have significantly diminished generation capability. Dams simply cannot produce as much electricity from low water levels as they can from high water levels. • Fish and wildlife food and habitat will be reduced or degraded over time during a drought and disease will increase, especially for aquatic life. • Wildlife will move to more sustainable locations, creating higher concentrations of wildlife in smaller areas, increasing vulnerability and further depleting limited natural resources. • Dry and dead vegetation will increase the risk of wildfire. • Land subsidence threat increases as groundwater is depleted. • Drought poses a significant risk to annual and perennial crop production and overall crop quality, leading to higher food costs. • Drought related declines in production may lead to an increase in unemployment. • Drought may limit livestock grazing resulting in decreased livestock weight, potential increased livestock mortality, and increased costs for feed. • Negatively impacted water suppliers may face increased costs resulting from the transport of water or developing supplemental water resources. • Long term drought may negatively impact future economic development. The overall extent of damages caused by periods of drought is dependent on its extent and duration. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by government, businesses, and citizens will contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of a drought event. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 7: Flood HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent................................................................................................................................... ............................... 29 HistoricalOccurrences ......................................................................................................... ............................... 33 SignificantPast Events ....................................................................................................... .............................37 Probabilityof Future Events .................................................................................................. .............................38 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................................ .............................39 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................43 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Participation ........................................................ .............................45 NFIP Compliance and Maintenance ....................................................................................... .............................46 RepetitiveLoss ....................................................................................................................... .............................47 Floods generally result from excessive precipitation. The severity of a flood event is determined by a combination of several major factors, including: stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and the degree of vegetative clearing and impervious surfaces. Typically, floods are long -term events that may last for several days. The primary types of general flooding are inland and coastal flooding. Inland or riverine flooding is a result of excessive precipitation levels and water runoff volumes within the watershed of a stream or river. Inland or riverine flooding is overbank flooding of rivers and streams, typically resulting from large -scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over a wide geographic area; thus it is a naturally occurring and inevitable event. Some river floods occur seasonally when winter or spring rainfalls fill river basins with too much water, too quickly. Torrential rains from decaying hurricanes or tropical systems can also produce river flooding. The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for Bexar County shows the following flood hazard areas: • Zone A: Areas subject to inundation by the 1- percent - annual- chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are shown. Mandatory flood insurance requirements and floodplain management standards apply. • Zone AE: Areas subject to inundation by 1- percent - annual- chance shallow flooding. It is the base floodplain where BFEs are provided. AE zones are now used on new format FIRMS instead of Al -30 zones. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 7: Flood • Zone X: Moderate risk areas within the 0.2- percent - annual- chance floodplain, areas of 1- percent- annual- chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1- percent - annual- chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1- percent - annual- chance flood by a levee. No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within these zones. Locations of flood zones in Bexar County based on the DFIRM from FEMA are illustrated in Figures 7 -1 to 7 -28. Figure 7 -1. Estimated Flood Zones in Bexar County Overview Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 7: Flood Figure 7-2. Estimated Flood Zones in Bexar County North 0 D7515 1 4,5 6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -3. Estimated Flood Zones in Bexar County East Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -4. Estimated Flood Zones in Bexar County South Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -5. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Alamo Heights �ttt�ts{y Legend FEMA Flood Zones }} 14 ! t JAN ) t ��4�t1 }fiit F� t��titi?)Sfi£ Ytt3tt sr t ijt tt tt s A tff tlti7tft� �`}}{} 'g F4 rfi {ij #ifii £c �Itz 7 it f�tE� ��'� ��Ir s EOC �trt zfitl t tt t t fi ; 4��1��F�ttt i,$firtkt� {�ti }sf }ts1 &t st f��tjf£�„�4y tilti� t'ftfitt �� ?ltr$�tfitt �t�� r1fi,t � {}�r i1 }ttjs� t�,a, .: t i�ttF4tlf5lffi ltt> }ii�y, E£tS { }`jy ttihirJti 9 {fiF ti f�fi4t t {t trTt tt 2N fj i� 7n � f��tty .., FIC'° rfi�fi Ei£fi��ti4 ;it�fit�3t;Eis ti r tfi} t( tu I'm "w" } .. �t tit} t r t t t t t tit it ltl7 s 41ver11 menWun� dps.l fir��k'jtt tfitltkst 3t }�1t „j }y tt }, }fxtfit �� t �atNv,,�at 73}, ;. 'f ryrt ,ltirjlfiits tl {rl��, #tfi t£rt }isttittt }t 't7 tt£trttgtt g lt l {tt¢fijI ta I 7 t }l 1111 Hospital jg, 3 {{t'ft {tit `�t� i t �rt`Sttt MMIEW r ltt s{ tt� 'sr�t ri iS4� lT1 f c rte; y� ;it r i "� s tit i,}r +t t t fityiEu�is firth jet t;rt r {f�j {Sljtf�t tI t�t'12t }3tf?i£�fi� �. ° Fi!t�� Y f�, pit #settf�t1t t�rtt€ £;t s {lts� �itfiit ,tt s, t,�t# } t tlttt }i�{ fitt stttl ;ttr7 t }� 1t�z t t R 18, } t r( t3��It� rt�tis t4fi � }ta�rF tt'iL t1t# }�Stt�4tt ;} rttfittt t ;;ststttt' ¢t a+,tint >} ttfi t rt f tit a }fit Gtfi tt } � t �t it( tt #rr? � s 1 �Y� �1` }t �rttitt £` {iitfitl,t }t£fit3`ttt`�tfs tfi iti ,.. , UtiCtky £t�fi }JJ�i£tst }t1j {fity tfi�st3ri{ �it }t }is� }til}�tr�fitZ7tS�fI {t�� t� } #�jit ttt {741j ittt (t ltttrA tY ts7fiNSfit ttk #f fist�fi£tt tS srt4 tyjt a' a Fret ' t "� Waterlso"age trfiS fi �}tjS ti }�trtt ;tt�A '�c� ifi� #�titttt%�ttttt tf ��t�,,�`� ��tl {fi� 3tt �'tt�4 ftttttt;��ittt }i +rtterr �`fi t ttt }rt i`;'tiifit h t'rt ty ' jt�t } }, �p � �,.. _. ,. Major Highways „'tt��iSiti�tt� �i {t rik�ti f� }t.�t�fi t iz} t }tti�i ;� 5C£� ttr} }tt rz4 `1%fh 4xt fiiYl �i �7” k t }C, Lt� i2�t Cexar cowty `v;'tii< lrJ� t£tstt2'�i }tfl fiJ4(fis� } }9M tr;5`stf} �N1ttt} t }fit v}si}'i4' 7r wmo Heights i3 }t$�f 'it }3 }34 t}trti }; ,Ht {tz ?t g %, o1 tya 3 ter t s1 r sryy3 �y t {��Fyfl tt�$ tt Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -6. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Balcones Heights Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 IMA x Cntital Fil'Iiti � �rt1�9idJnPf � EOC Evacuation Route E4, Fire � Ca+�ri7a�n��4ani�a� III Hospital { 0 IT Infr str Glure l�J ;f{ f,4r police it School Y�1 Uway F 1��i ,per y {tw 134 tt'4 , §t41{ Major Highways Bexar cowtv �711§,j§ „r} BaIcones Haikghis t tt 0 0.0501 02 01 O.A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -7. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Castle Hills Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Legend FEMA Flood Zones 5 AE� « { { r> h FI'rta � � W h, � ommuht t s §n69� St ttt § EOC fstr�jy,t �r � "Vacuaiiorl Route t Firs i Govern menWu nic'! W .f�irij "fU}¢t d� yy � Hospital �Iki�yt. al jj `i35 �' o IT IfTasttr: S {� �,. �; JM { {r N $ X {ml, §;r School ttfli {ft YR }Mil ,. i } #f Sf(�ft {{ '{tor. J Utility teese age tit �{ Major Highways }fr"Syt(Y }1nX34 Ctaisxarcounty eo \fY � Castles bills n.5fiy° Y NNbF��. " $ 7 & 6.2 DA Us D8 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -8. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of China Grove Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Legend FEMA Fl d Zones' AE I Critical Facilities ��tlur�a�at „t �," {f i E 00"i rVacuation Route fi } ' It& t4 l i Fire ve n entAlunici"W f$ IBC Hospital t;IIr, tr, 0 IT It structure, E#it'1ti�tif�1� s #1 l� x hUi� s r "}'�r i i Utilfty ftterlsewage Major Highways exar c t� China Grfyve F 1 .1 0.2 DA U 01 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -9. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Converse a,n,t erc � t � tst Ps 44 i Legend �Nlt, jr FEMA Flood Zones Ae fsl r£�P Air C 'ti l Facilities EOC� XW i Route y r'.' J$4 }}£4 {it 1j 4i3t} Fire Piistit i }fitJr> t,3� {r£ }�1f3£sskri��rr � zss�,} W Hospital Vj f P� IT Infras1ruGwre ' { wp f' (k } lttC Qpr t School )w 111p ) {{ ti (3I yI33 ter!'Sa age Majorkfighways k�rs�p t£i ,, j1�7t1 � }4t }ftR7 �1 }� 'iStSv`5e.. r tty� �t1i}'r°��kIPPt}'�i � £ �7�rg�tP{ F tyit�4l7a 7 y 4 tJ3 ixi y Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -10. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Elmendorf Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -11. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Fair Oaks Ranch Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Legend FEMA Flood Zones AE { Critical File j tit � 1 t �YYtrr arJ htti) EOC {tt 0 evacuation Roue` ,t rf,£ Fire sfrj jjr£ta� tnj�i f 4�f � i ill Hospital 0 IT I frastr cture �'•a• 4 jay;t } t { {{ �i} t d t { of �Ct } ff } f t Ig "'I}{ b },n 17t i E))) 1 t r n 4£ i t; {f }T tj}I i tit hj • ^$." pori a „� yr, rr, School Shofar r ,a t. A, tq h UkiMy Major Highways �q �� Farr Oaks Ranch Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -12. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Grey Forest Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -13. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Helotes 9, 11 O.iMAS C7 1,05 IA t r, Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -14. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Hill Country Village Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 ggyy Legend I£j }£ 7 7 At FEMA Flood Zones 7 N jiit f }£2 7 A r: £ }ftf utrtttrrn Critical Facilities Lt, EOC wacuabon Roots Mre } n� A Gt7vemmen Plunk al Ni sp I kgg7F , N 0 IT Infrastvileture =mot Paoli 001 :... Utility WalerSewage {t` {�t t � } Major Highways sexar County Hill Ccurktry Village e 14 j55t )ttY tit � } €tl }�" ��iik�. } tsfst t �itfi��r��jt� €�t� ttl {i�ffSittt}£ t �£ 4 h� � AdlkS� t ok t�itrc rltf# tt.. s, r;YtU �' "��9.4i Aei.a ! i}.;3 0 aS OA Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -15. Estimated Flood Zones in the Town of Hollywood Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Legend FEMA Flood n s 5° AE to {} S A Critical Facilities jfZ EOC , s EvacuaWn Route t 1 �e�� a ire K ) I1 Si5"0"NI' yy €� f Is Haspaal i3 }fit ;rf'4{ pbii 4 Utility e ft K i iPnty It o Pam n i5 «xt srl''ti1�}, i rtl 00.776.15 33 C14S 0A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -16. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Kirby FEMA Flood Zones ��rtfnti�r AE NO 14h t t „f Critical Facilities t �• iyiti'�� EC. 3 �t rr. Ewacuation Route' k Fire kit S ',6c. iii 5 ijj p ?��?3 }c3zi$ta} t1 i t' r �°srt��i��ttirm �3tr��f�tfi'st ltit��# ��i fijtr �r 1'.. a� rfrtir }�sttttx4 � i�t�tl�trf l��s} utility tf� t �m �g h'�'d�t�wf4ge o f Hq h°ways: t z{ sexar county; Kirby ti... �,}y4 t }lkl }4L , ° 9k9Pr5# Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -17. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Leon Valley 1t Legend }j" t �s �t2 lz} r FEMA Flood Zones k t #1't i �i ! Y It C tt'f}r4, s rZ } AP ,ggy t$ttj3ti Y }`� Ot�$ ' 110 Critical Facilities t gy � EOQ t �lttf�''iyttp}i � 2�, >•ff �41j1 4 {ytf Evacuation Roct ' 414;4 t t 4 4titit �r7 p 33� C }o J GavePI"&ITIePFWunic al i"'44jg}t Hospital IT In"StfUCtLife IM 6 ",li jrtlitd "�� 4t4` tltrtttl4,�,t s {ifftrr�i }ijtt�t 4 }4 t ,.�, �} t�s4r4444ft,�ft # School �r 'ts }x c 4 �t ate sc4 t Ig r � §�ttft 4 #4i}dt1j sttrtr7,t'� ?ti4f�ii?�7i4 1t ajgf Hq ways. exar county t tt }r f }r ttt 4 r� ? {�jtt4 a [eon Fella y t tt 4t4} p,}i i t4..ik 4} X47 }s�4it�� 4d� �Kt W 4 , h t i t�s` 4144ii14 u�� P 0 fit. UB 1S 05 A L75 t Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -18. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Live Oak Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 s, Legend 1 FEMA Flood Zones L' tt{ ttr, iltia, ;s:tY {��tLk t�iJykti�{3 �i(rt AE Eew: 4<< t 7xu GS tit 'cal Facilities arramuniClorr 5 Ewacuation Route' fr, Fire t "A ° j. G. T'overnn1e7AUMunlc ai I 'll Hosptak t h�Y Felice ,s. ?i'Si;tt k t 4 s tl�i ;ha r` h , utility " "11,15,00 $ it ti s {4{ttn }$} i� -at ersewage :. fktirl slgij;` ��t zctix Nf,@jpr Highways BeA,ar County Live [yak: ix ti ttt�7% L ... r u t17t f}f t4 ASS r "`, tt 0 0.15 07 0.6 WD I I Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Section 7: Flood j Figure 7 -19. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Olmos Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -20. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Saint Hedwig Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -21. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Sandy Oaks Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Legend FEMA Flood Zones AE .. : x Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -22. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Schertz Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -23. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Shavano Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Legend FEMA Flood Zones $j4 i��'��yt1 is l<4tsi� AE ry 2 �jt +fix b Critical Facilities 4� }te4t�Ztr t i ,! J, t """o� >tf I$ Sf 'a0i„� S Pmgr Ewacua`F Route < & 011 , tt, Five tY4k!r �spt ` k7`�` jk 7�'!`vemrI'� I`FbfP4 unicc� pal . Y7 �. r�� , :Iga t .. 0 I7ln a tfuctur Ysitt3 tt WIN }St l { #7 b U tity f A it 5�.�g W ateeri° e Oil, f o f Highways; t u exaf county t tl t� t 'ha,,a o Par tti �f tl Y t Tfr} f��it hf2s� w }��t1t}j�jt1i'St ?i# }yFt.,�fi t�j} iix lf} Y; y} 3,f b4&^;£iv �:.i i Z1.8 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -24. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Somerset S � 'F 1� }fii {7 #£ itttFitni }rk� # 7t<((4i Jt } }) Al� III k N Ik'F k�Stj kyt�£tr`�t)(�k #4" t i }'kt}+r7 ;ts� 44F J{ ttn £ r y t � #iCy y 1 {tkFF vs �� r 4 #F�k k t�j f4�£ l { f }) 1, s a s #F^� t��iltFlGitstlr }£;tt �)�� a kza sF� ?F=Y S #} kklfoktr3. £�$j4 i 1 t {{ r�r� k £ e��# ��1�� ,�zF�fft�tlFkti�t$'fsF #jfkti�T� s tr 3'3 #£it #�tt ;tt, ci` Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 25 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -25. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Terrell Hills Legend ' S MA Flood Zones 4 APE Y�z � Critical Facilities 4� }t Carnmunitai0on s ..rm C sf "k 0 Ewacuafinn Route Fire k f t , R. 1. Hospaal � pit tam s�� 13r, fa4'��its 0 IT inVastfucture s�p mxJ 1,,�s� re fjyi5r {tt71tjil ty IIgg �i Y��t�� s � ler w age Major Highways ONE,,, rONE,,, II c, Sexaf County ji i {Ir1z,s t{ Terrell Halts tt3 }z 3t'�i rr��t lip r ry} �Y {�Ft21Y(srl) n0.075,15 01 DAB 0.6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -26. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Universal City Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 27 FEMA AE x Ciritiral Facilities , NQ 1* EOC Fire trnnt�arta t IV Hospital '� ��r13iY 1J �tS N' F #r4Wy l��f� ff4 s; ill t}�s +tai tai }t #t ri ,.liS i��isl }tt+ 0 IT Infrastructure; OwIiSE1 r Utility Mayor 1-I ighways xar cowtv z Urtiversal City a� . Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 27 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -27. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Von Ormy Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 28 Section 7: Flood Figure 7 -28. Estimated Flood Zones in the City of Windcrest 111"IM"I'll ;; rri.. � Flood on j) Ell l`ti�i,if��1��t }t< :f� }i %cif }��'N��'� A gg.'� 1911 """"""kIlstl%`p"tnjr ty�lt {y #77rFtRsrj 2�t744it# sly {� U 4}t Rt 41 V {itt{ 'syi } rS l� r ?qtr }fir #r� �i'cal Facilities Cornniu nlcaOon s r lid EOC +A,atfrYCl rt� 4�s ®'.,Er. EiE ,ry t�R�a SH :rsr Fire ovemm ntrP, unic� aI [all Hcapt"lal is� {}fit �,zt�3'tS »lr�it' Q IT Infrastmeture &g pblice r� r rn Utility 4 WalerlSewage r1tP, r41s Major Highvays Y tr�s fs Beer County OW '} �r rst 1g.,� $rt; €ird3s' fa 0 0, 1 0.12 r4 0�8 01 _ The severity of a flood event is determined by a combination of several factors including: stream and river basin topography and physiography; precipitation and weather patterns; recent soil moisture conditions; and degree of vegetative clearing and impervious surfaces. Typically, floods are long -term events that may last for several days. Determining the intensity and magnitude of a flood event is dependent upon the flood zone and location of the flood hazard area, in addition to depths of flood waters. The extent of flood damages can be expected to be more damaging in the areas that will convey a base flood. FEMA categorizes areas on the terrain according to how the area will convey flood water. Flood zones are the categories that are mapped on Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Table 7 -1 provides a description of FEMA flood zones and the flood impact in terms of severity or potential harm. Flood Zones A, AE, and X are the only hazard areas mapped in the region. Figures 7 -1 through 7 -28 (above) should be read in conjunction with the extent for flooding in Tables 7 -1, 7 -2, and 7 -3, in order to determine the intensity of a potential flood event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 29 Section 7: Flood Table 7-1. Flood Zones Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 30 Section 7: Flood Zone A is interchangeably referred to as the 100 -year flood, the 1- percent - annual chance flood, the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), or more commonly, the base flood. This is the area that will convey the base flood and constitute a threat to the planning area. The impact from a flood event can be more damaging in areas that will convey a base flood. Structures built in the SFHA are subject to damage by rising waters and floating debris. Moving flood water exerts pressure on everything in its path and causes erosion of soil and solid objects. Utility systems, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, fuel, electrical systems, sewage maintenance systems, and water systems, may also be damaged if not elevated above the BFE. The intensity and magnitude of a flood event is also determined by the depth of flood waters. Table 7 -2 below describes the category of risk and potential magnitude of an event in correlation to water depth. The water depths depicted in Table 7 -2 are approximations based on elevation data. Table 7 -3 describes the extent associated with stream gauge data provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Table 7 -2. Extent Scale — Water Depth Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 31 Section 7: Flood Table 7 -3. Extent for Bexar County Planning Area' I Severity estimated by averaging floods at certain stage level over the history of flood events. Severity and peak events are based on U.S. Geological Survey data. z Severity is provided for jurisdictions where peak data was provided. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 32 Section 7: Flood The range of flood intensity that the County can experience is high, or Zone A. Based on reporting from the USGS, a flood event can place the County at the extent of "Below Flood Stage," as shown in Tables 7 -2 and 7- 3 (above). However, the Bexar County planning area has experienced flooding over 33 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). Based on historical occurrences, the planning area could experience 9 to 16 inches of water within a 24 -hour period due to flooding. The data described in Tables 7 -1 through 7 -3, together with Figures 7 -1 through 7 -28, and historical occurrences for the area, provides an estimated potential magnitude and severity for the planning area. For example the City of Fair Oaks Ranch, as shown in Figure 7 -11, has areas designated as Zone A and Zone AE. Reading this figure in conjunction with Table 7 -1 means the area is of high risk for flood. ■ .� -r Historical evidence indicates that areas within Bexar County are susceptible to flooding, especially in the form of flash flooding. It is important to note that only flood events that have been reported have been factored into this risk assessment; therefore it is likely that additional flood occurrences have gone unreported before and during the recording period. Table 7 -4 identifies historical flood events that resulted in damages, injuries, or fatalities within the Bexar County planning area. Table 7 -5 provides the historical flood event summary by jurisdiction. Historical Data is provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service's (NOAA /NWS) Storm Prediction Center, in addition to the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) database for Bexar County. Table 7 -4. Historical Flood Events, 1996 -20163 3 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 33 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 34 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 35 Section 7: Flood Table 7 -5. Summary of Historical Flood Events, 1996 -20164 4 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 36 Section 7: Flood Significant Past Events Flash Flood on October 17, 1998 — Bexar County The Great October Flood - In advance of a very slow- moving upper level trough of low pressure over West Texas, a cold front drifted slowly southeastward into West Central Texas during the evening of Friday, October 16th. Deep moisture was in place across South Central Texas as the two systems approached, being fed at the mid and upper levels by two nearly stationary hurricanes, Madeline near the tip of Baja Mexico, and Lester, anchored just off Acapulco, Mexico, and at the low levels by a strong flow from the Gulf of Mexico. A very moisture -rich environment was in place across South Central Texas as the event developed. Near 3 AM CST, scattered showers and thunderstorms began to break out over Bexar County beneath the mid and upper level moisture plume. They quickly became widespread as a low level rain - cooled boundary formed along the south and east edge of the county. It was upon this boundary that subsequent showers and thunderstorms continued to form. By 6 AM CST, rainfall of up to 4 inches had been reported in Western Bexar County, with amounts approaching 4 inches in neighboring Western Comal County. By 8 AM CST that morning, heavy rain continued over Bexar County, and had spread northward across Comal County into Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. Amounts at this time were approaching 8 inches in Bexar and Comal Counties and 4 inches in Hays and Travis Counties. The heavy rain continued through the morning period. By midnight, moderate rain had again broken out over Bexar and Comal Counties. The activity spread westward through the early morning hours on Sunday. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 37 Section 7: Flood At the same time, moderate to heavy rain also redeveloped along and north of a line from San Antonio to Gonzales to LaGrange. By late Sunday morning, spotty heavy rainfall continued in the wake of a cold front between San Antonio, Burnet, and Bastrop as another weak upper level disturbance in the southwesterly flow aloft approached. All rivers, creeks, and streams along and east of a San Antonio to Austin line remained at or above flood stage from Saturday, October 17th through Sunday, October 18th, with a majority continuing to flood through Monday, October 19th. This event broke rainfall records across South Central Texas, producing 18 floods of record in South Central Texas streams. October became the wettest of any month in climate records for Bexar County since 1885. October 17th became the wettest day and wettest 24 -hour period in Bexar County climatic records, nearly doubling both previous records. Rivers across the area reached or exceeded record stage heights, resulting in widespread flooding in the flood plains of streams, creeks, and rivers. Rainfall amounts on October 17th and 18th ranged from 15 to 22 inches, from northern Bexar County to southeast Kendall County, most of Comal County, and southern Hays County. Damage and destruction to livestock and agriculture, roads and bridges, and both public and property and buildings significantly exceeded that of previous flooding. Thousands to tens of thousands of livestock were killed, as nearly 3,000 homes were destroyed and another 8,000 or so homes were damaged. Nearly 1,000 mobile homes were destroyed and another 3,000 were damaged. Twenty -five people drowned as a direct result of the flooding in October in South Central Texas. All nine deaths in Bexar County on Saturday, as well as the two on Sunday, were associated with driving vehicles into flooded waters. Flash Flood on August 16, 2007 — Bexar County, City of Elmendorf Extremely heavy rainfall associated with the remains of Tropical Storm Erin spread across Bexar County on the 16th and into the 17th of August, with a general 4 to 5 inch rain over the county. Totals of up to 8 inches were reported at several locations in the south and west parts of San Antonio, as well as between Helotes and Leon Springs. By 2 PM, most roads in the northwest part of Bexar County were closed. By 3:30 PM that afternoon, more than 39 high water rescues were reportedly underway in Bexar County. Water was almost waist -deep at Southcross Boulevard in San Antonio. Floodwaters were so deep and running so swiftly at the San Antonio High School West Campus that a masonry wall collapsed and filled the school with almost five feet of muddy water. Hallways were flooded, and desks, computers, and boxes were tossed and thrown together. A young man was driving to work in the mid - afternoon of August 16th when his vehicle struck a guardrail on Southwest Military Drive and was knocked into Six Mile Creek near South Flores Street. The young man called his family to say he had an accident, then exited the vehicle but drowned as he attempted to move to higher ground. Near midnight a young woman was driving with three friends and a baby near North Star Mall when she accidentally drove her sport utility vehicle into deeper water where it was slammed against a bridge and then was swept into a drainage ditch. The three other adults in the vehicle were able to get the baby out of the vehicle through the window and escape. When the three looked back for the driver, she was gone. Her body was found later by emergency responders when the water receded. • r 1 Based on recorded historical occurrences and extent within the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, flooding is highly likely and an event will likely occur within the next year. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 38 Section 7: Flood Vulnerability and Impact A property's vulnerability to a flood depends on its location and proximity to the floodplain. Structures that lie along banks of a waterway are the most vulnerable and are often repetitive loss structures. All participating jurisdictions encourage development outside of the floodplain, although there are some critical facilities, homes, and businesses already located in the floodplain. Table 7 -6 includes critical facilities in the planning area that are located in the floodplain and are vulnerable to flooding. Table 7 -6. Critical Facilities in the Floodplain by Jurisdiction Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 39 Section 7: Flood Historic loss estimates due to flood events are presented in Table 7 -7 below. Considering 70 flood events over a 21 -year period, the frequency is approximately 2 to 3 events every year. Table 7 -7. Potential Annualized Losses by Jurisdiction, 1996 -20165 5 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 40 Section 7: Flood The severity of a flooding event varies depending on the relative risk to citizens and structures located within each jurisdiction. Table 7 -8 depicts the level of impact for Bexar County and each participating jurisdiction. Table 7 -8. Impact by Jurisdiction Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 41 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 42 Section 7: Flood Assessment of acts Flooding is the deadliest natural disaster that occurs in the U.S. each year, and it poses a constant and significant threat to the health and safety of the people in the planning area. Impacts to the planning area can include: • Recreational lakes including Braunig, Calaveras, and Mitchell Lake attract fishing and boating activities throughout the year. A large flood event could impact recreational water activities, placing boaters and campers in imminent danger, potentially requiring emergency services or lake evacuation. • The Government Canyon State Natural Area may suffer significant wildlife mortality during and following a flood due to damaged or destroyed ecosystems and water contamination. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 43 Section 7: Flood • Flood- related rescues may be necessary at swift water and low water crossings or in flooded neighborhoods where roads have become impassable, placing first responders in harm's way. • Evacuations may be required for entire neighborhoods because of rising floodwaters, further taxing limited response capabilities, and increasing sheltering needs for displaced residents. • Health risks and threats to residents are elevated after the flood waters have receded due to contaminated flood waters (untreated sewage and hazardous chemicals) and mold growth typical in flooded buildings and homes. • Significant flood events often result in widespread power outages, increasing the risk to more vulnerable portions of the population who rely on power for health and /or life safety. • Extended power outages can result in an increase in structure fires and /or carbon monoxide poisoning, as individuals attempt to cook or heat their home with alternate, unsafe cooking or heating devices, such as grills. • Floods can destroy or make residential structures uninhabitable, requiring shelter or relocation of residents in the aftermath of the event. • First responders are exposed to downed power lines, contaminated and potentially unstable debris, hazardous materials, and generally unsafe conditions, elevating the risk of injury to first responders and potentially diminishing emergency response capabilities. • Emergency operations and services may be significantly impacted due to damaged facilities. • Significant flooding can result in the inability of emergency response vehicles to access areas of the community. • Critical staff may suffer personal losses or be otherwise impacted by a flood event and unable to report for duty, limiting response capabilities. • City or county departments may be flooded, delaying response and recovery efforts for the entire community. • Private sector entities that the county, city, and residents rely on, such as utility providers, financial institutions, and medical care providers may not be fully operational and may require assistance from neighboring communities until full services can be restored. • Damage to infrastructure may slow economic recovery since repairs may be extensive and lengthy. • Some businesses not directly damaged by the flood may be negatively impacted while utilities are being restored or water recedes, further slowing economic recovery. • When the community is affected by significant property damage it is anticipated that funding would be required for infrastructure repair and restoration, temporary services and facilities, overtime pay for responders, as well as normal day -to -day operating expenses. • Displaced residents may not be able to immediately return to work, further slowing economic recovery. • Residential structures substantially damaged by a flood may not be rebuilt for years and uninsured or underinsured residential structures may never be rebuilt, reducing the tax base for the community. • Large floods may result in a dramatic population fluctuation, as people are unable to return to their homes or jobs and must seek shelter and /or work outside of the affected area. • Businesses that are uninsured or underinsured may have difficulty reopening, which results in a net loss of jobs for the community and a potential increase in the unemployment rate. • Flooding may cause significant disruptions of clean water and sewer services, elevating health risks and delaying recovery efforts. • The psycho - social effects on flood victims and their families can traumatize them for long periods of time, creating long term increases in medical treatment and services. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 44 Section 7: Flood • Extensive or repetitive flooding can lead to decreases in property value for the affected community. • Floods pose a potential catastrophic risk to annual and perennial crop production and overall crop quality, leading to higher food costs. • Flood- related declines in production may lead to an increase in unemployment. • Large floods may result in loss of livestock, potential increased livestock mortality due to stress and water borne disease, and increased cost for feed. The overall extent of damages caused by floods is dependent on the extent, depth, and duration of flooding, and the velocities of flows in the flooded areas. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by government, businesses, and citizens will contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of a flood event. !; • Flood insurance offered through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the best way for home and business owners to protect themselves financially against the flood hazard. All of the jurisdictions located in Bexar County participate in the NFIP and have a designated floodplain administrator except for Sandy Oaks. The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated in 2014 and does not currently have any FEMA designated Special Flood Hazard Areas. As an additional indicator of floodplain management responsibility, communities may choose to participate in FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS). This is an incentive -based program that allows communities to undertake flood mitigation activities that go beyond NFIP requirements. Currently, only the City of Live Oak participates in CRS (current class 7). The remaining jurisdictions in the planning area understand the value of participation in this program and have identified this as a goal and objective of the Plan that was discussed during Planning Team meetings. Many participating jurisdictions in the NFIP currently have in place minimum NFIP standards for new construction and substantial improvements of structures; these jurisdictions include: Balcones Heights, China Grove, Converse, Elmendorf, Grey Forest, Hill Country Village, Hollywood Park, Kirby, Leon Valley, Saint Hedwig, Somerset, Terrell Hills, Von Ormy, and Bexar County. Other jurisdictions have adopted higher regulatory NFIP standards to limit floodplain development, such as freeboard. These communities include: Alamo Heights, Castle Hills, Fair Oaks Ranch, Live Oak, Olmos Park, Schertz, Universal City, and Windcrest. The remaining jurisdictions of Helotes, Saint Hedwig, and Shavano Park have adopted significantly restrictive standards including prohibiting habitable structures in the regulatory floodplain. The flood hazard areas throughout Bexar County are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect public safety. These flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, flood - proofed, or otherwise protected from flood damage. Mitigation actions are included to address flood maintenance issues as well, including routinely clearing debris from roadside ditches and bridges, and expanding drainage culverts and storm water structures to more adequately convey flood waters. It is the purpose of Bexar County and NFIP jurisdictions participating in the Hazard Mitigation plan to continue to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 45 Section 7: Flood conditions in specific areas. Each of the NFIP participating jurisdictions in the Plan are guided by their local Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. These communities will continue to comply with NFIP requirements through their local permitting, inspection, and record - keeping requirements for new and substantially developed construction. Furthermore, the NFIP program for each of the participating jurisdictions promotes sound development in floodplain areas and includes provisions designed to: • Protect human life and health; • Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; • Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; • Minimize prolonged business interruptions; • Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in floodplains; • Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood -prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; and • Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area. In order to accomplish these tasks, Bexar County and participating NFIP jurisdictions seek to follow the subsequent guidelines to achieve flood mitigation: • Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety, or property in times of flood, such as filling or dumping, that may cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities; • Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities, which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction, as a method of reducing flood losses; • Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters; • Control filling, grading, dredging and other development, which may increase flood damage; and • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers, which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards to other lands. As mentioned, Bexar County and participating jurisdictions have developed mitigation actions that relate to either NFIP maintenance or compliance. Compliance and maintenance actions can be found in Section 16. Flooding was identified by the majority of the communities as a high risk hazard during hazard ranking activities at the Risk Assessment Workshop. As a result, many of the mitigation actions were developed with flood mitigation in mind. A majority of these flood actions address compliance with the NFIP and implementing flood awareness programs. County -wide, communities recognize the need and are working towards adopting additional higher NFIP regulatory standards to further minimize flood risk in their community. Smaller no- growth communities that typically do not have personnel or funds to implement more stringent NFIP compliance measures are focusing on NFIP public awareness activities. This includes promoting the availability of flood insurance by placing NFIP brochures and flyers in public libraries or public meeting places. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 46 Section 7: Flood Repetitive Loss The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Grant Program under FEMA provides federal funding to assist states and communities in implementing mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the long -term risk of flood damage to SRL residential structures insured under the NFIP. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) administers the SRL Grant Program for the State of Texas. Severe Repetitive Loss properties are defined as residential properties that are: • Covered under the NFIP and have at least 4 flood - related damage claim payments (building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceed $20,000; or • At least 2 separate claim payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. In either scenario, at least 2 of the referenced claims must have occurred within any 10 -year period, and must be greater than 10 days apart.6 Table 7 -9 shows repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties for Bexar County and all participating jurisdictions. Table 7 -9. Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties 6 Source: Texas Water Development Board Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 47 Section 7: Flood Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 48 Section 7: Flood Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 49 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 50 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 51 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 52 Section 7: Flood Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 53 Section 8: Thunderstorm HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 HistoricalOccurrences ........................................................................................................... ............................... 3 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................9 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................9 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................13 Thunderstorms create extreme wind events which includes straight line winds. Wind is the horizontal motion of the air past a given point, beginning with differences in air pressures. Pressure that is higher at one place than another sets up a force pushing from the high pressure toward the low pressure; the greater the difference in pressures, the stronger the force. The distance between the area of high pressure and the area of low pressure also determines how fast the moving air is accelerated. Thunderstorms are created when heat and moisture near the Earth's surface are transported to the upper levels of the atmosphere. By- products of this process are the clouds, precipitation, and wind that become the thunderstorm. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), a thunderstorm occurs when thunder accompanies rainfall. Radar observers use the intensity of radar echoes to distinguish between rain showers and thunderstorms. Straight line winds can have gusts of 100 miles per hour (mph) or more. Unlike tornadoes, windstorms have a broader path that is several miles wide and can cover several counties. Straight line winds may down trees and power lines, overturn mobile homes, and cause damage to well -built structures. Straight line winds are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damages. One type of straight line wind, the downburst, is a small area of rapidly descending air beneath a thunderstorm. A downburst can cause damage equivalent to a strong tornado and make air travel extremely hazardous. Location Thunderstorm wind events can develop in any geographic location and are considered a common occurrence in Texas. Therefore, a thunderstorm wind event could occur at any location within Bexar County's planning area, as these storms develop randomly and are not confined to any geographic area within the County. It is assumed that the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is uniformly exposed to the threat of thunderstorm winds. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 8: Thunderstorm :I ►, I - i The extent or magnitude of a thunderstorm wind event is measured by the Beaufort Wind Scale. Table 8 -1 describes the different intensities of wind in terms of speed and effects, from calm to violent and destructive. Table 8 -1. Beaufort Wind Scale' Figure 8 -1 displays the wind zones as derived from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1 Source: World Meteorological Organization Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 8: Thunderstorm a+3tix�t�yeyrm5 s ..Nrn��",�7rt ,gymW�";,�:�.,. ...... On average, the planning area experiences 3 to 4 thunderstorm wind events every year. The County is located within Zone III, meaning the entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can experience winds up to 200 mph. Bexar County has experienced a significant wind event — an event with winds above 73 knots in the range of "Force 12" on the Beaufort Wind Scale. • .y Tables 8 -2, 8 -3, and 8 -4 depict historical occurrences of thunderstorm wind events for the Bexar County planning area according to the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) data. Since January 1955, 210 thunderstorm wind events are known to have impacted Bexar County, based upon NCEI records. Table 8- 3 presents information on known historical events impacting the Bexar County planning area, with resulting damages. It is important to note that high wind events associated with other hazards, such as tornadoes, are not accounted for in this section. The NCEI is a national data source organized under NOAA and is the largest archive available for climate data. Only NCEI reported incidents were factored into this risk assessment. In the tables that follow throughout this z Source: NOAA; the black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 1 i t r�u y 7 f ry t y t 1 tr mix S y w to y i3 tj y ryrC Ri f i yiit it y�" r t INN ZONES �G ZONE R � r 4„ ZONE It HER CONSIDERATIONS ZONE ill om -ONE W ,rB WKW Spxd momrog crilena. M kwl skme qMde r qmvra C On average, the planning area experiences 3 to 4 thunderstorm wind events every year. The County is located within Zone III, meaning the entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can experience winds up to 200 mph. Bexar County has experienced a significant wind event — an event with winds above 73 knots in the range of "Force 12" on the Beaufort Wind Scale. • .y Tables 8 -2, 8 -3, and 8 -4 depict historical occurrences of thunderstorm wind events for the Bexar County planning area according to the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) data. Since January 1955, 210 thunderstorm wind events are known to have impacted Bexar County, based upon NCEI records. Table 8- 3 presents information on known historical events impacting the Bexar County planning area, with resulting damages. It is important to note that high wind events associated with other hazards, such as tornadoes, are not accounted for in this section. The NCEI is a national data source organized under NOAA and is the largest archive available for climate data. Only NCEI reported incidents were factored into this risk assessment. In the tables that follow throughout this z Source: NOAA; the black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 8: Thunderstorm section, some occurrences seem to appear multiple times in one table. This is due to reports from various locations throughout the County. In addition, property damage estimates are not always reported. When this occurs, estimates are provided when reasonable. When an estimate has been provided in a table for losses, the dollar amounts have been adjusted to indicate the damage in 2016 dollars. Table 8 -2. Historical Thunderstorm Wind Events, 1955 -2016 Table 8 -3. Historical Thunderstorm Wind Events, With Reported Damages, 1955 -20163 3 Only recorded events with fatalities, injuries, or damages are listed. Magnitude is listed when available. Damage values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 8: Thunderstorm Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 8: Thunderstorm Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 8: Thunderstorm Table 8 -4. Summary of Historical Thunderstorm Wind Events, 1955 -20164 4 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 8: Thunderstorm Significant Past Events May 27, 1997 — Kelly Air Force Base — Bexar County Severe downburst winds estimated in excess of 100 mph produced widespread damage across much of the southwest part of Bexar County. Widespread minor damage was reported to roofs and outbuildings, windows, signs, and trees in the area. Wind gusts to 62 knots were measured by an NWS employee at his home in San Antonio. Power lines were blown down, with power out for several hours to over 100,000 persons. March 19, 2002 — Bexar County High winds caused spotty damage over the western third of Bexar County, nearly continuous damage over the eastern two - thirds of the County, and widespread destruction of trees and limbs. The high winds damaged roofs, propelled hail into homes and cars, and knocked over power poles. Ten people were injured by the flying debris. The greatest devastation was in southwest Bexar County, just northeast of the town of Lytle. Emergency management and Red Cross officials estimated that 50 mobile homes and houses were severely damaged or destroyed, with minor damage to another 100 mobile homes and houses. In addition to the widespread downburst damage, evidence was found of small and short -lived tornadoes. It was very difficult to separate the widespread downburst -wind damage from the tornado damage. The main clues were that the downburst damage was almost exclusively along a southwest to northeast path and showed a consistent and gradual gradient of damage levels, from the worst of the damage to the least of the damage. June 2, 2010 — Alamo Heights /Castle Hills Thunderstorms moved through the northern part of San Antonio and produced wind gusts estimated up to 65 mph. These winds knocked down power lines in Leon Springs, knocked down traffic lights and tore a hole in a house roof in Stone Oak, knocked down tree limbs in Alamo Heights, knocked down trees around the San Antonio International Airport, and caused power outages in Castle Hills. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 8: Thunderstorm Most thunderstorm winds occur during the spring, in the months of March, April, and May, and in the fall, during the month of September. Based on available records of historic events, 210 events in a 61 year reporting period provides a frequency of occurrence of 3 to 4 events every year. Even though the intensity of thunderstorm wind events is not always damaging for the Bexar County planning area, the frequency of occurrence for a thunderstorm wind event is highly likely, meaning that an event is probable within the next year for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. .i t 1 Vulnerability is difficult to evaluate since thunderstorm wind events can occur at different strength levels, in random locations, and can create relatively narrow paths of destruction. Due to the randomness of these events, all existing and future structures and facilities in Bexar County could potentially be impacted and remain vulnerable to possible injury and property loss from strong winds. Trees, power lines and poles, signage, manufactured housing, radio towers, concrete block walls, storage barns, windows, garbage receptacles, brick facades, and vehicles, unless reinforced, are vulnerable to thunderstorm wind events. The Bexar County planning area features multiple mobile or manufactured home parks throughout the planning area and many participating jurisdictions. These parks are typically more vulnerable to thunderstorm wind events than typical site built structures. In addition, manufactured homes are located sporadically throughout the planning area, including 16 jurisdictions. These homes would also be more vulnerable. The U.S. Census data indicates a total of 19,128 manufactured homes located in the Bexar County planning area, including most participating jurisdictions (Table 8 -5). (Nine of the participating jurisdictions do not feature manufactured homes.) In addition, 44.8% (approximately 302,761 structures) of the single family residential (SFR) structures in the Bexar County planning area were built before 1980.5 These structures would typically be built to lower or less stringent construction standards than newer construction, and may be more susceptible to damages during significant thunderstorm wind events. Table 8 -5. Structures at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau data estimates for 2015. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 8: Thunderstorm More severe damage involves windborne debris; in some instances, patio furniture and other lawn items have been reported to have been blown around by wind and, very commonly, debris from damaged structures in turn have caused damage to other buildings not directly impacted by the event. The following critical facilities would be vulnerable to thunderstorm wind events in each participating jurisdiction: 6 The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated in 2014. Census data is not available for this community. 7 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 8: Thunderstorm Table 8-6. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 8: Thunderstorm A thunderstorm wind event can also result in traffic disruptions, injuries, and in rare cases, fatalities. The impact of extreme winds experienced in the Bexar County planning area has resulted in thirty injuries and one fatality. While damages and shutdown of critical facilities would have a minor impact on the planning area, historic injuries and fatalities indicate an impact of "Substantial," with multiple potential deaths and injuries. Overall, the average loss estimate (in 2016 dollars) is $13,527,246, having an approximate annual loss estimate of $221,758 (Table 8 -7). Table 8 -7. Potential Annualized Losses by Jurisdiction, 1955 -2016 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 8: Thunderstorm Assessment of acts Thunderstorm wind events have the potential to pose a significant risk to people, and can create dangerous and difficult situations for public health and safety officials. Impacts to the planning area can include: • Individuals exposed to the storm can be struck by flying debris, falling limbs, or downed trees, causing serious injury or death. • Structures can be damaged or crushed by falling trees, which can result in physical harm to the occupants. • Significant debris and downed trees can result in emergency response vehicles being unable to access areas of the community. • Downed power lines may result in roadways being unsafe for use, which may prevent first responders from answering calls for assistance or rescue. • During exceptionally heavy wind events, first responders may be prevented from responding to calls, as the winds may reach a speed in which their vehicles and equipment are unsafe to operate. • Thunderstorm wind events often result in widespread power outages, increasing the risk to more vulnerable portions of the population who rely on power for health and /or life safety. • Extended power outages often result in an increase in structure fires and carbon monoxide poisoning, as individuals attempt to cook or heat their homes with alternate, unsafe cooking or heating devices, such as grills. • First responders are exposed to downed power lines, unstable and unusual debris, hazardous materials, and generally unsafe conditions. • Emergency operations and services may be significantly impacted due to damaged facilities and /or loss of communications. • Critical staff may be unable to report for duty, limiting response capabilities. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 8: Thunderstorm • County or City departments may be damaged, delaying response and recovery efforts for the entire community. • Private sector entities that the County or City and its residents rely on, such as utility providers, financial institutions, and medical care providers may not be fully operational and may require assistance from neighboring communities until full services can be restored. • Economic disruption negatively impacts the programs and services provided by the community due to short and long term loss in revenue. • Some businesses not directly damaged by extreme wind events may be negatively impacted while roads are cleared and utilities are being restored, further slowing economic recovery. • Older structures built to less stringent building codes may suffer greater damage as they are typically more vulnerable to extreme winds. • Large scale wind events can have significant economic impact on the affected area, as it must now fund expenses such as infrastructure repair and restoration, temporary services and facilities, overtime pay for responders, as well as normal day -to -day operating expenses. • Businesses that are more reliant on utility infrastructure than others may suffer greater damages without a backup power source. • Recreational lakes including Braunig, Calaveras, and Mitchell Lake attract fishing and boating activities throughout the year. A large thunderstorm wind event could impact recreational water activities, placing boaters and campers in imminent danger, potentially requiring emergency services or lake evacuation. • Recreational areas and parks may be damaged or inaccessible due to downed trees or debris, causing temporary impacts to area businesses. The economic and financial impacts of thunderstorm winds on the area will depend entirely on the scale of the event, what is damaged, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by the community, local businesses, and citizens will also contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of any thunderstorm wind event. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 9: Hail HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent...................................................................................................................................... ..............................1 HistoricalOccurrences ........................................................................................................... ............................... 2 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................5 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................5 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................10 u .. � i WITE—Yuln Hailstorm events are a potentially damaging outgrowth of severe thunderstorms. During the developmental stages of a hailstorm, ice crystals form within a low pressure front due to the rapid rising of warm air into the upper atmosphere, and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate into ice crystals until they fall as round or irregularly shaped masses of ice typically greater than 0.75 inches in diameter. The size of hailstones is a direct result of the size and severity of the storm. High velocity updraft winds are required to keep hail in suspension in thunderclouds. The strength of the updraft is a by- product of heating on the Earth's surface. Higher temperature gradients above the Earth's surface result in increased suspension time and hailstone size. Hailstorms are an extension of severe thunderstorms that could potentially cause severe damage. As a result, they are not confined to any specific geographic location, and can vary greatly in size, location, intensity, and duration. Therefore, the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is equally at risk to the hazard of hail. Extent The National Weather Service (NWS) classifies a storm as "severe" if there is hail 0.75 inches in diameter (approximately the size of a penny) or greater, based on radar intensity or as seen by observers. The intensity category of a hailstorm depends on hail size and the potential damage it could cause, as depicted in the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) Intensity Scale in Table 9 -1. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 9: Hail Table 9 -1. Hail Intensity and Magnitude' The intensity scale in Table 9 -1 ranges from HO to H10, with increments of intensity or damage potential in relation to hail size (distribution and maximum), texture, fall speed, speed of storm translation, and strength of the accompanying wind. Based on available data regarding the previous occurrences for the area, the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, may experience hailstorms ranging from an HO to an H10. Bexar County can mitigate a storm from low risk (hard hail) to a super hailstorm with baseball sized hail that leads to extensive structural damage and could cause fatal injuries. Historical evidence shown in Figure 9 -1 demonstrates that the planning area is vulnerable to hail events overall, which typically result from severe thunderstorm activity. Only those events for Bexar County and participating jurisdictions with latitude and longitude available were plotted (Figure 9 -1). Historical events with reported damages, injuries, or fatalities are shown in Table 9 -2. A total of 349 reported historical hail events impacted Bexar County between 1955 and December 2016 (Table 9 -3). These events were reported to the NCEI and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) databases, and may not represent all hail events that have occurred during the past 61 years. Only hail events that have been reported have been factored into this Risk Assessment. It is likely that additional hail occurrences have gone unreported before and during the recording period. 1 Source: NCEI Intensity Scale, based on the TORRO Hailstorm Intensity Scale Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 9:Hail Figure 9-l. Spatial Historical Hail Events, 1955-2016 Table 9-2. Historical Hail Events 1955-2816 2 z Damages reported inIO16dollars. 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 3 Section 9: Hail Table 9-3. Summary of Historical Hail Events, 1955 -20163 3 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 9: Hail Significant Past Events March 28, 2000 — Leon Valley A small and short -lived tornado struck just northwest of Leon Valley. It was preceded by winds estimated at 40 to 50 mph, along with heavy rain and large hail. Widespread damage was reported to cars in the Leon Valley due to the very large hail. No significant damage was reported as a result of the small tornado. Hail damage in the area was estimated at more than 5 million dollars. May 6, 2001— Bexar County A significant storm system developed into one of the most devastating hail- and -wind storms in the history of Bexar County to date. Hail in sizes up to 4 inches, accompanied at times by winds estimated to be over 60 mph, destroyed the roofs of hundreds of homes, and severely damaged hundreds of vehicle bodies, as well as breaking thousands of windows in houses and vehicles. The damage was reported to have been the worst in the northwestern part of the county, where hail reached at least 4 inches in diameter. Damages were estimated to reach at least $60,000,000 for homes, and an additional $60,000,000 for cars. Additional severe thunderstorm winds struck the western part of the county just before 8 PM and destroyed around a dozen power lines along Grissom Road near Culebra. April 12, 2016 — Bexar County An upper level low pressure system over the Desert Southwest combined with a stationary front to produce thunderstorms across South Central Texas. Some of these storms produced large to giant hail. The largest hail storm moved across northern Bexar County, crossing the northern half of San Antonio. Damage costs in Bexar County were estimated at $1.36 billion, making it the costliest hail storm recorded in the state of Texas according to the Insurance Council of Texas. Estimates do not include commercial losses which pushed the losses higher. Estimates are provided by the Insurance Council of Texas and include damage to 136,000 vehicles and 125,000 homes. Probability of Based on available records of historic events, 349 events in a 61 year reporting period for the Bexar County planning area provides a frequency of occurrence of 5 to 6 events every year. This frequency supports a "highly likely" probability of future events for the entire planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. The numbers listed for the jurisdictions within the county are historical events that are known to have specifically impacted those jurisdictions. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 9: Hail Vulnerability and Impact Damage from hail approaches $1 billion in the U.S. each year. Much of the damage inflicted by hail impacts crops. Even relatively small hail can shred plants to ribbons in a matter of minutes. Vehicles, roofs of buildings and homes, and landscaping are also most commonly damaged by hail. Utility systems on roofs at school districts and critical facilities would be vulnerable and could be damaged. Hail could cause a significant threat to people as they could be struck by hail and falling trees and branches. Outdoor activities and events may elevate the risk to residents and visitors in the planning area when a hailstorm strikes with little warning. Older structures not built to current codes may be more vulnerable to damages than newer structures. The Bexar County planning area features multiple mobile or manufactured home parks throughout the planning area and participating jurisdictions. These parks are typically more vulnerable to hail events than typical site built structures. In addition, manufactured homes are located sporadically throughout the planning area, including 16 jurisdictions. These homes would also be more vulnerable. The U.S. Census data indicates a total of 19,128 manufactured homes located in the Bexar County planning area, including most participating jurisdictions (Table 9 -4). (Nine of the participating jurisdictions do not feature manufactured homes.) In addition, 44.8% (approximately 302,761 structures) of the single family residential (SFR) structures in the Bexar County planning area were built before 1980.4 These structures would typically be built to lower or less stringent construction standards than newer construction, and may be more susceptible to damages during significant hail events. Table 9 -4. Structures at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau data estimates for 2015. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 9: Hail The following critical facilities would be vulnerable to hail events in each participating jurisdiction: Table 9 -5. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction 5 The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated in 2014. Census data is not available for this community. 6 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 9: Hail Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 9: Hail First responders could be unable to respond to calls due to blocked roads. Furthermore, hail could cause power outages, which could cause health and safety risks to more vulnerable populations in the planning area. Hail has been known to cause injury to humans, and occasionally has been fatal. Overall, the average property and crop loss estimate (in 2016 dollars) is $1,579,984,927, having an approximate annual loss estimate of $23,939,166. Based on historic loss and damages, the impact of hail damages on the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can be considered "Minor" severity of impact, meaning injuries and illness do not result in permanent disability, City area facilities shut down for more than one week, and more than 10 percent of property destroyed or with major damage. Table 9 -4. Potential Annualized Losses by Jurisdiction, 1955 -2016 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 9: Hail Assessment of acts Hail events have the potential to pose a significant risk to people and can create dangerous situations. Impacts to the planning area can include: • Hail may create hazardous road conditions during and immediately following an event, delaying first responders from preserving or providing for public health and safety. • Individuals and first responders who are exposed to the storm may be struck by hail, falling branches, or downed trees, resulting in injuries or possible fatalities. • Residential structures can be damaged by falling trees, which can result in physical harm to occupants. • Large hail events will likely cause extensive roof damage to residential structures, along with siding damage and broken windows, creating a spike in insurance claims and a rise in premiums. • Automobile damage may be extensive depending on the size of the hail and length of the storm. • Hail events can result in power outages over widespread areas, increasing the risk to more vulnerable portions of the population who rely on power for health and /or life safety. • Extended power outages can result in an increase in structure fires and /or carbon monoxide poisoning, as individuals attempt to cook or heat their home with alternate, unsafe cooking or heating devices, such as grills. • First responders are exposed to downed power lines, damaged structures, hazardous spills, and debris that often accompany hail events, elevating the risk of injury to first responders and potentially diminishing emergency response capabilities. • Downed power lines and large debris, such as downed trees, can result in the inability of emergency response vehicles to access areas of the community. • Hazardous road conditions may prevent critical staff from reporting for duty, limiting response capabilities. • Economic disruption negatively impacts the programs and services provided by the community due to short and long term loss in revenue. • Some businesses not directly damaged by the hail event may be negatively impacted while roads are cleared and utilities are being restored, further slowing economic recovery. • Businesses that are more reliant on utility infrastructure than others may suffer greater damages without a backup power source. • Hazardous road conditions will likely lead to increases in automobile accidents, further straining emergency response capabilities. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 9: Hail • Depending on the severity and scale of damage caused by large hail events, damage to power transmission and distribution infrastructure can require days or weeks to repair. • A significant hail event could significantly damage agricultural crops, resulting in extensive economic losses for the community and surrounding area. • Hail events may injure or kill livestock and wildlife. • A large hail event could impact the accessibility of recreational areas and parks due to extended power outages or debris clogged access roads. The economic and financial impacts of hail will depend entirely on the scale of the event, what is damaged, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning conducted by the community, local businesses, and citizens will contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of any hail event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 10: Winter Storm HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................3 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 HistoricalOccurrences ............................................................................................................ ..............................4 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................5 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................6 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 Assessmentof Impacts ....................................................................................................... ..............................9 A severe winter storm event is identified as a storm with snow, ice, or freezing rain. This type of storm can cause significant problems for area residents. Winter storms are associated with freezing or frozen precipitation such as freezing rain, sleet, snow, and the combined effects of winter precipitation and strong winds. Wind chill is a function of temperature and wind. Low wind chill is a product of high winds and freezing temperatures. Winter storms that threaten Bexar County usually begin as powerful cold fronts that push south from central Canada. The County is at risk to ice hazards, extremely cold temperatures, and snow. However, the effects and frequencies of winter storm events are generally mild and short - lived. As indicated in Figure 10 -1, on average, the area experiences 1 -10 cold days a year, meaning 1 -10 days per year are at or around freezing temperatures. During these times of ice and snow accumulation, response times will increase until public works road crews are able to assist in making the major roads passable. Table 10 -1 describes the types of winter storms possible to occur in Bexar County. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 10: Winter Storm Figure 10 -1. Extreme Cold Days 1960 -20031 Table 10 -1. Types of Winter Storms 1 Source: National Weather Service (NWS). The black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Extreme Cold Days, 4# } t4 t i'i` �t 7$jlf�tiz jtl s {tyi f'il� is Logendl : tt11j��i £(� it 74i{ is�ikl�i' #t I�37� ��t Irtif, 4 S.t }t fl }tI si�s� r Ex )" tit4t a Table 10 -1. Types of Winter Storms 1 Source: National Weather Service (NWS). The black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 10: Winter Storm Winter storm events are not confined to specific geographic boundaries. Therefore, all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations in the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, are considered to be exposed to a winter storm hazard and could potentially be impacted. The extent or magnitude of a severe winter storm is measured in intensity based on the temperature and level of accumulations as shown in Table 10 -2. To determine the intensity of a winter storm, Table 10 -2 should be read in conjunction with the wind -chill factor chart described in Figure 10 -2. The chart is an index developed by the National Weather Service (NWS) and is not applicable when temperatures are over 50 °F or winds are calm. Table 10 -2. Magnitude of Severe Winter Storms Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 10: Winter Storm Figure 10 -2. Wind Chill Chart Wind Chill Chart Wind chill temperature is a measure of how cold the wind makes real air temperature feel to the human body. Since wind can dramatically accelerate heat loss from the body, a blustery 307 day would feel just as cold as a calm day with 0 °F temperatures. Bexar County has never experienced a blizzard, but based on 16 previous occurrences recorded from 1996 through December 2016, it has been subject to winter storm watches, warnings, freezing rain, sleet, snow, and wind chill. The average number of cold days is similar for the entire planning area, including the county and all participating jurisdictions. Therefore, the intensity or extent of a winter storm event to be mitigated for the area ranges from mild to moderate, according to the definitions from Table 10 -2. During a winter storm event, the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can expect anywhere between 0.1 to 3.0 inches of ice and snow, temperatures between 25 and 50 degrees, with winds ranging from 0 to 15 mph. F■ .I Table 10 -3 shows historical occurrences for Bexar County from 1996 through December 2016 provided by the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) database. There have been 16 recorded winter storm events in Bexar County. Historical winter storm information, as provided by the NCEI, identifies winter storm activity across a multi- county forecast area for each event. The appropriate percentage of the total property and crop damage reported for the entire forecast area has been allocated to each county impacted by the event. Historical winter storm data for all participating jurisdictions are provided on a county -wide basis per the NCEI database. Table 10 -3 shows historical incident information which resulted in property or crop damage for the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 10: Winter Storm Table 10 -3. Historical Winter Storm Events, 1996 -20162 Significant Past Events January 16, 2007 — Bexar County A combination of freezing rain and drizzle began falling over the county near 6 PM on January 15th and continued through noon of the following day. Overpasses and elevated roads became iced -over and were closed on the evening of January 15th. City and County offices and schools, which had been closed for the Martin Luther King Holiday, remained closed on January 16th. Main offices and schools did not re -open until January 18th. The ice caused power outages to more than 65,000 persons, along with widespread traffic accidents. Over 500 accidents were reported in a 12 -hour period. February 7, 2014 — Bexar County Southerly low level winds and an approaching upper level trough allowed warm and moist air to move over a cold air mass at the surface. This led to freezing drizzle and light freezing rain developing during the early morning hours on February 7th. The first report of freezing drizzle was at 2:50 AM CST in Kerr County. Icy roads z Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 10: Winter Storm were reported in several counties. The Shin Oak Drive Bridge over 1 -35 was closed in Live Oak, as were the flyover ramps connecting Highway 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio, both of these in Bexar County. The precipitation transitioned from freezing to liquid during the late morning hours as temperatures warmed above freezing. I" • • r� r According to historical records, Bexar County experiences approximately 1 winter storm event per year. Hence, the probability of a future winter storm event affecting the Bexar County planning area is highly likely, with a winter storm likely to occur within the next year. All participating jurisdictions' events are included under the County. Vulnerability During periods of extreme cold and freezing temperatures, water pipes can freeze and crack and ice can build up on power lines, causing them to break under the weight or causing tree limbs to fall on the lines. These events can disrupt electric service for long periods. An economic impact may occur due to increased consumption of heating fuel, which can lead to energy shortages and higher prices. House fires and resulting deaths tend to occur more frequently from increased and improper use of alternate heating sources. Fires during winter storms also present a greater danger because water supplies may freeze and impede firefighting efforts. All populations, buildings, critical facilities, and infrastructure in the entire Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, are vulnerable to severe winter events. People and animals are subject to health risks from extended exposure to cold air. Elderly people are at greater risk of death from hypothermia during these events, especially in the rural areas of the county where populations are sparse, icy roads may impede travel, and there are fewer neighbors to check in on the elderly. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), every year hypothermia kills about 600 Americans, half of whom are 65 years of age or older. Populations over the age of 65 in the Bexar County planning area are approximately 11% of the total population; there is an estimated total of 200,4443 potentially vulnerable residents in the planning area based on age (Table 10 -4). Table 10 -4. Populations at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014 data for Bexar County Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 10: Winter Storm The following critical facilities would be vulnerable to winter storm events in each participating jurisdiction: 4 County totals includes all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 10: Winter Storm Table 10 -5. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 10: Winter Storm One fatality, no injuries, and no damages were reported in the Bexar County planning area over the 21 -year recording period. While annual losses due to winter storms are considered negligible, the risk of injury or death may elevate the potential severity of impact for the planning area. Based on historic reporting, the severity of impact for the planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is "Minor," meaning injuries are treatable with first aid, shutdown of facilities and services for more than one week, and more than 10 percent of property destroyed or sustains major damage. Table 10 -6. Potential Annualized Losses for Bexar County, 1996 -20165 Assessment of acts The greatest risk from a winter storm hazard is to public health and safety. Potential impacts for the planning area may include: • Vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and infants, can face serious or life- threatening health problems from exposure to extreme cold including hypothermia and frostbite. • Loss of electric power or other heat sources can result in increased potential for fire injuries or hazardous gas inhalation because residents burn candles for light or use fires or generators to stay warm. • Response personnel, including utility workers, public works personnel, debris removal staff, tow truck operators, and other first responders are subject to injury or illness resulting from exposure to extreme cold temperatures. • Response personnel would be required to travel in potentially hazardous conditions, elevating the safety risk due to accidents and potential contact with downed power lines. • Operations or service delivery may experience impacts from electricity blackouts due to winter storms. • Power outages are possible throughout the planning area due to downed trees and power lines and /or rolling blackouts. • Critical facilities without emergency backup power may not be operational during power outages. • Emergency response and service operations may be impacted by limitations on access and mobility if roadways are closed, unsafe, or obstructed. • Hazardous road conditions will likely lead to increases in automobile accidents, further straining emergency response capabilities. 5 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 10: Winter Storm • Depending on the severity and scale of damage caused by ice and snow events, damage to power transmission and distribution infrastructure can require days or weeks to repair. • A winter storm event could lead to tree, shrub, and plant damage or death. • Severe cold and ice could significantly damage agricultural crops. • Schools may be forced to shut early due to treacherous driving conditions. • Exposed water pipes may be damaged by severe or late season winter storms at both residential and commercial structures, causing significant damages. The economic and financial impacts of winter weather on the community will depend on the scale of the event, what is damaged, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by businesses and citizens will also contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of a winter storm event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 11: Wildfire HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent................................................................................................................................... ............................... 26 HistoricalOccurrences ......................................................................................................... ............................... 53 Probabilityof Future Events .................................................................................................. .............................56 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................................ .............................56 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................85 Hazard DescriDtion A wildfire event can rapidly spread out of control and occurs most often in the summer, when the brush is dry and flames can move unchecked through a highly vegetative area. Wildfires can start as a slow burning fire along the forest floor, killing and damaging trees. The fires often spread more rapidly as they reach the tops of trees, with wind carrying the flames from tree to tree. Usually, dense smoke is the first indication of a wildfire. A wildfire event often begins unnoticed and spreads quickly, lighting brush, trees, and homes on fire. For example, a wildfire may be started by a campfire that was not doused properly, a tossed cigarette, burning debris, or arson. Texas has seen a significant increase in the number of wildfires in the past 30 years, which included wildland, interface, or intermix fires. Wildland Urban Interface or Intermix (WUI) fires occur in areas where structures and other human improvements meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Wildland fires are fueled almost exclusively by natural vegetation, while interface or intermix fires are urban /wildland fires in which vegetation and the built- environment provide the fuel. It should be noted that jurisdictions with no designated WUI are still at risk for wildfires. While the risk is greater within the identified WUI, wildfires have no geographical boundary and can impact any jurisdiction. Densely populated areas may have limited risk in the absence of a WUI, however, residential neighborhoods contain wildfire fuels similar to wildland areas including trees, grass, shrubs and other vegetative fuels. Coupled with the built- environment, densely populated areas may face sweeping structural fires resulting from a small brush fire in a low risk area. In Texas, nearly 80% of all wildfires occur within two miles of a community. I •�. A wildfire event can be a potentially damaging consequence of drought. Wildfires can vary greatly in terms of size, location, intensity, and duration. While wildfires are not confined to any specific geographic location, they are most likely to occur in open grasslands. The threat to people and property from a wildfire event is greater in the fringe areas where developed areas meet open grass lands, such as the WUI. (Figures 11 -1 through 11- 25). It is estimated that 28 percent of the total population in Bexar County live within the WUI. However, the entire Bexar County planning area is at risk for wildfires. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -1. Wildland Urban Interface Map — Bexar County Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 �A o � Miles fi '9. 53.5 7 10.5 14 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -2. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Alamo Heights Legend �y Mile's'- MOMS 0,3 GAS 0.6 It is estimated that 14 percent of the total population in Alamo Heights live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Alamo Heights is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -3. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Balcones Heights It is estimated that zero percent of the total population in Balcones Heights live within the WUI, the area at greatest risk for wildfire. However, the entire City of Balcones Heights is at some risk for wildfires as the hazard has no geographic boundaries. While densely populated areas may have limited risk in the absence of a WUI, residential neighborhoods throughout the city contain wildfire fuels similar to wildland areas including trees, grass, shrubs and other vegetative fuels, with the area south of Fredericksburg Road /U.S. 87 being the most vulnerable as it is primarily residential with wildfire fuels. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -4. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Castle Hills It is estimated that 7 percent of the total population in Castle Hills live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Castle Hills is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 I Legend a� WildlandUrImn, interface WA v 1 N1&A to S TISx'20 ac,,.. N __ e1A1 - 1 hs....,-2 0 3 Wac 2+ "c 7 o GT.S hqd CrPtical Facilities 4 t �Ma'agGop�ha� ou:: For KmApltsl 0 6+ fitalFtiWrittwe Shelter '.... is a 0, { GaSVO HIM Bogor courtly; i koM � s r M Iles It is estimated that 7 percent of the total population in Castle Hills live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Castle Hills is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -5. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of China Grove 41 Mil G.5 0`'7 It is estimated that 99 percent of the total population in China Grove live within the WUI. However, the entire City of China Grove is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -6. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Converse Legend I..LT1 hs40ac 2 1 NY40 R flee at j . I hw "20 pm s hvi 0 5 - 4 M9 to 9 M-12 sf.. F. - i h!s,2 0 3 hss'sc It is estimated that 43 percent of the total population in Converse live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Converse is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 a EQC s "a Faux. Kmpfial rx� [7 inrritirijelAte yi. tier Wool shelter" lO,Pi+ + e 'Con- ED Ver£Sr:'. 86.0f cowly It is estimated that 43 percent of the total population in Converse live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Converse is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -7. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Elmendorf It is estimated that 89 percent of the total population in Elmendorf live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Elmendorf is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -8. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Fair Oaks Ranch Miles AOAM35 0.7 1.05 iA It is estimated that 84 percent of the total population in Fair Oaks Ranch live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Fair Oaks Ranch is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -9. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Grey Forest G Q -.j 0.2 0.1 47.4 It is estimated that 100 percent of the total population in Grey Forest live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Grey Forest is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -10. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Helotes COO* fatffifio$ Ct}rva9#V6tYt�HI EQ E.Waamum Rp Rm GwarnmerkWunimpal 0 17 Wrlelydclu aib�f46 tr'%A* irk Dexar couniv 41 ori.178.35 07 1.05 1. It is estimated that 90 percent of the total population in Helotes live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Helotes is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -11. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Hill Country Village It is estimated that 21 percent of the total population in Hill Country Village live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Hill Country Village is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -12. Wildland Urban Interface Map —Town of Hollywood Park It is estimated that 24 percent of the total population in Hollywood Park live within the WUI. However, the entire Town of Hollywood Park is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -13. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Kirby LT I hV40 ac . 1 1mw"20 any 3 hv1.0. mr_. i r&5 to9Ma ac 1 1'571 to 3 lu°as Miles OMTT5 0.3 o 06 It is estimated that 14 percent of the total population in Kirby live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Kirby is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 EQ0.::... Fu C'1a"vefr;1' m1' all r. a gg . lww o 17 IntraWructufa : P �" istbat5��' Miles OMTT5 0.3 o 06 It is estimated that 14 percent of the total population in Kirby live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Kirby is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -14. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Leon Valley It is estimated that 6 percent of the total population in Leon Valley live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Leon Valley is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -15. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Live Oak It is estimated that 19 percent of the total population in Live Oak live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Live Oak is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 IVA Legend Wildland Ur n, Interface �WWi 1 vt 1, hv20 to mivlD ac 34.1RVIOlo ^ft%5or o'3 Kvac Critical F Okl A t, EQC Fwo GL reftWnCoal t 0 ORO UY10 0ev, aexar coun1v fj 0.176. 0.7 1 G I. It is estimated that 19 percent of the total population in Live Oak live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Live Oak is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -16. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Olmos Park It is estimated that 3 percent of the total population in Olmos Park live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Olmos Park is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Legend Wildiand Apr n, Interface �WVI) , {iPtP'9'O 1C Y9V5 or hr.2 BV q £- 1 hV2to3NR`s WM7 , OT :S C;��.ppk, EOC , 0 fr' WG'a.sirichAre �.. { £m ,^yOX3fxl SF?raii�a :t ` egy a fl ' .lasn t Mar- 4441ways Dims P. e q � It is estimated that 3 percent of the total population in Olmos Park live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Olmos Park is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -17. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Saint Hedwig It is estimated that 95 percent of the total population in Saint Hedwig live within the WLIL However, the entire City of Saint Hedwig is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -18. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Sandy Oaks Mdse It is estimated that 90 percent of the total population in Sandy Oaks live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Sandy Oaks is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Legend ildl n Ur6 a, Interface (WIJ0 I • ALT 9 hsav ac ,,.,,. 5 - 9 hs'S to 7 M-12 ac Critical Fflifi �'d3#`9'pYx,`F'aYh6�;1' Ems';.. Ey=ollum Rolm x yy 0 17 8nrr ?aacfuf* scrool A ways< as"Oaks sexar couf 1p Mdse It is estimated that 90 percent of the total population in Sandy Oaks live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Sandy Oaks is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -19. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Schertz It is estimated that 59 percent of the total population in Schertz live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Schertz is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -20. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Shavano Park ° n It is estimated that 58 percent of the total population in Shavano Park live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Shavano Park is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Wildland UrWn Interface R LT a WO ar, ;k "C 1 haY Am°+A %,h`it 3 4150 rN ice. ry r "SA 5 -1 t BY5 to I rte. <2 B4. QQ 3 lk5a g r E 7 x OT.S WJat., Critical rrrcflira u� EOC Fri J z v. r Pea. �'4y lV x� aJ r �9WgOWE � ae;r craartiy ;10.I20.25, 0-5 G.75 1 It is estimated that 58 percent of the total population in Shavano Park live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Shavano Park is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -21. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Somerset It is estimated that 94 percent of the total population in Somerset live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Somerset is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -22. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Terrell Hills to 1 - Lt' I W40 or 5 - I ha"', to I WR of 6.1h5j2to3hw 7 . GT :5 fts)at a h It is estimated that zero percent of the total population in Terrell Hills live within the WUI, the area at greatest risk for wildfire. However, the entire City of Terrell Hills is at some risk for wildfires as the hazard has no geographic boundaries. While densely populated areas may have limited risk in the absence of a WUI, residential neighborhoods throughout the city contain wildfire fuels similar to wildland areas including trees, grass, shrubs and other vegetative fuels, the entire city limits is primarily residential with wildfire fuels, therefore the entire City of Terrell Hills is vulnerable. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 EO: Fvo Tafrgll H'05 E1OXOT 4:,runly'.':. a h It is estimated that zero percent of the total population in Terrell Hills live within the WUI, the area at greatest risk for wildfire. However, the entire City of Terrell Hills is at some risk for wildfires as the hazard has no geographic boundaries. While densely populated areas may have limited risk in the absence of a WUI, residential neighborhoods throughout the city contain wildfire fuels similar to wildland areas including trees, grass, shrubs and other vegetative fuels, the entire city limits is primarily residential with wildfire fuels, therefore the entire City of Terrell Hills is vulnerable. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -23. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Universal City $ - .LTI hV41Dac 3 . i i sf2la to s hail ac 5 • i hS115 to d rq'T ac i rs"T ID 3 rte n a , GT 3 K619k; 41 IML "10-170 -15 0.7 1.05 f. It is estimated that 55 percent of the total population in Universal City live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Universal City is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 EOC � "'d:;y7brm Row1c FWP gay. GDv8rraT5ef° &Vu=Va1 I.af Kaep?iB4 I'�d@'SPt$�'EYxBC�ilY�. ? R1 croo Pxa rAg:flways um l coy Boxsr,counlM':. 41 IML "10-170 -15 0.7 1.05 f. It is estimated that 55 percent of the total population in Universal City live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Universal City is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -24. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Von Ormy It is estimated that 97 percent of the total population in Von Ormy live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Von Ormy is at risk for wildfires. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 25 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -25. Wildland Urban Interface Map — City of Windcrest It is estimated that 14 percent of the total population in Windcrest live within the WUI. However, the entire City of Windcrest is at risk for wildfires. Extent Risk for a wildfire event is measured in terms of magnitude and intensity using the Keetch Byram Drought Index (KBDI), a mathematical system for relating current and recent weather conditions to potential or expected fire behavior. The KBDI determines forest fire potential based on a daily water balance, derived by balancing a drought factor with precipitation and soil moisture (assumed to have a maximum storage capacity of 8 inches), and is expressed in hundredths of an inch of soil moisture depletion. Each color in Figure 11 -26 represents the drought index at that location. The drought index ranges from 0 to 800. A drought index of 0 represents no moisture depletion, and a drought index of 800 represents absolutely dry conditions. Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -26. Keetch -Byram Drought Index (KBDI) for the State of Texas, December 20161 5 OEM MEM: ks 0 Fire behavior can be categorized at four distinct levels on the KBDI: • 0 -200: Soil and fuel moisture are high. Most fuels will not readily ignite or burn. However, with sufficient sunlight and wind, cured grasses and some light surface fuels will burn in spots and patches. i The black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 27 Section 11: Wildfire • 200 -400: Fires more readily burn and will carry across an area with no gaps. Heavier fuels will not readily ignite and burn. Expect smoldering and the resulting smoke to carry into and possibly through the night. • 400 -600: Fires intensity begins to significantly increase. Fires will readily burn in all directions, exposing mineral soils in some locations. Larger fuels may burn or smolder for several days, creating possible smoke and control problems. • 600 -800: Fires will burn to mineral soil. Stumps will burn to the end of underground roots and spotting will be a major problem. Fires will burn through the night and heavier fuels will actively burn and contribute to fire intensity. The KBDI is a good measure of the readiness of fuels for a wildfire event. The KBDI should be referenced as the area experiences changes in precipitation and soil moisture, and caution exercised in dryer, hotter conditions. The current range of intensity for Bexar County in a wildfire event is within 0 to 200. The average extent to be mitigated for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is a KBDI of 422. At this level, the intensity of fires begins to significantly increase and fires readily burn in all directions, exposing mineral soils in some locations. The Texas Forest Service's Fire Intensity Scale identifies areas where significant fuel hazards and associated dangerous fire behavior potential exist based on the weighted average of 4 percentile weather categories. Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, ranges from low to potential high wildfire intensities. Figures 11 -27 through 11 -51 identify the wildfire intensity for the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 28 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -27. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Bexar County Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 29 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -28. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Alamo Heights Legend aracternstic Fire lnlens4S 2 6Uwl i 1.5 3 BPderair6 3.5 4IKO, ) 5 gvcrr CKitical . Facififie . �- iT^a?rI €9i��f8uGt�: : Ems: Gda� a� ®Rfiib,2� Vie: &kwtl:: 0 iJNAY to jj1wjv' XWw, ",$O Ew - w A„` r,vy �y r ,y Mile's fjo.ouis 0.3 045 0,6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 30 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -29. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Balcones Heights .5 Critical FacRifie �.M'. " kid "6�k";PRdaY°6��r8�Hh:Fµrw:.. gq kf him5truoure 'Be. xz C^J,on, m�Milea t . @.1 0.2 0.3 0A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 31 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -30. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Castle Hills Leger' 2, , LFri 21 � 2.5 3,5 ' ti Was ,00- 120.25 0.5 0.75 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 32 EOC �v+i94S"3i "<69 b;!"f1 &t�@s.fi PBk:Fprw::. ppRR � �h6 UIJOY ti Was ,00- 120.25 0.5 0.75 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 32 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -31. Fire Intensity Scale Map — China Grove Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 33 rY„ Chafacterisfic Fire lnlens4 S r xn 4 6111, 2.5 xo- n {s• F t�";Yp'dEh,A A 4 <Y 4r` � �~urve °YPfll E91�`,%d�'Y,31}py ILI n J EOC �ru�i �.� t9¢xtsg�t9ext 6T ImbRatrurfure v " A. UNIty Was G,5 015 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 33 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -32. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Converse Legend' 11.a i 15 Mudgraki ; 5, Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 34 9 m 4 irintmatrunwa s *4 r� MOSS '0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 34 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -33. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Elmendorf A" Charautwisfic Fire Intensity le s " t ` `'' ° " t � k rat '��r �.r j 105, x EL w '61 Facifib n, ,.. E fine yir`1 e> 3 }}z;l'' �iaC"w'K^PRIS"9'fi16k.3 E9 h:Fprw:.. OR NO w M � � fs 9 s OR i� � r ies Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 35 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -34. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Fair Oaks Ranch Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 36 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11-35. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Grey Forest Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 37 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -36. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Helotes 2 6Li 2.5 ;, 3 s vjerffle8, J.5 ' 4BS wh3 4.5 5 uVW flghq `.. x r z, 100.178.35 07 1.05 1A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 38 ECC R,}j4 e �.RN�C°NF°:, a,PRGd`ht"6„p tH9r.9j:... fl�.1 @4a,rspzak�4 4`f htmM uclure thy@ x r z, 100.178.35 07 1.05 1A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 38 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -37. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Hill Country Village gf-a ' 2 ¢pow 2.5 ,9 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 39 ;. EOC t"d'eA van Royale -: rer�*nE.3srsa�i�d::. �G MRaas�ail>ap Fir §say 60-8, OiNir?'@''_. ,9 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 39 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -38. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Hollywood Park Legend' 2ttw 2.5 3. 3 11,Wwatc6; �m IM Critical FadE ies Eft:, LL�6 t$St�r�I�Zlfl tT &��d�t6`JfE�er�' 'g4° `taol�:�wsatkc� D,.,,k. ilss .ti�i� U �I_�� t� �a Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 40 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -39. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Kirby Leger' Charactafestic Fire lip city Scale w9� 2Lwi 1.5', 5 ftacraW ' ks Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 41 W�4 ^Qx4'�d FRlC��EOP'.A 4tk * ECC igto.4 o Rai ti n poke.. lk mB 4 'U9Ny:. v kauv m Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 41 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -40. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Leon Valley Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 42 3 Leger CharactaTisttc Fire Intensity scale �I�%'L 9p ,'S,jw$:. ' t ;2ILAi= ` 2.5 A kr 3 8hwaIs6; a.5 kxY. 58ti ,�g8ghg Ilk. Critical FacsWifias �1 #1 °rY9'.Ie9E'v"�tl$IVgy EDC �tYr t- �*wca�;n4SFb^�avav+:s(�d::. yy sty e+ x3Tli`v''k':a {TLPd0.8m X ro: 'v "Vol }ti �{ ,yqy "s Gwa :! tldayx itti?;F v xta'tL� lea. v DO 1211,25 tl.5 0.75 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 42 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -41. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Live Oak Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 43 Leger Charactwisfic Fire 1 n a Scale I'7 .§ �. t Lcwl . „u 2u IN f p "f1f3h 3 tr[i ad F iM��aas tYb `f,f ,.�.wm,akaian� 89 E u�b y� rim � �M�°kMu 4 4 #} ` �^' �:# Sfi'�rT7bPltdt'rp�'.9iP2Fp�rw:.. sm ariw y uffiAy �8�f3at `@185 M�SK� Ne«qr C;p5try x, t a b ^^W k wR (. .r y< J y y� i1B&G "At.x, 4 2 0,17025 0.7 1.05 14 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 43 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -42. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Olmos Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 44 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -43. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Saint Hedwig rir' Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 45 Legend a hafactsfic Fire Int msft-y' Scat ' 0 r2 ILmo 25 R,W " Critical Facelies ! h rz "� d Y x add' 'r �bCT"at�ttili��'2n@Y i.a EOC mm ' . ' „m ya; mi i4� 6caGtSea� o 8i o isarwre % 9m e• +`' 0,0My jAl rir' Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 45 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -44. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Sandy Oaks Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 46 ` Charautwisfic Fire Intensity scale g�5 a 1 2 gL '! k 2.5 9 8 wcfmk -$; a ! 3.5 IR �.5 5 Y'wr��'4�hE Critical Fac6fffiees ECC Foe ff InftaMuchire i rw6wwa 'U001y, F.qqjgp H gbworo,:.. '.' :dtip oakp 0 010.2 4.4 0.6 08 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 46 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -45. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Schertz 4� �rm�xorii�s,MraB�a[ +�': nm - nemcam;n6 ='F� a �v ITIntaair"'J oure Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 47 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -46. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Shavano Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 48 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -47. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Somerset Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 49 Charactatisfic Fire Inca city Scale d� 5_ ?a8��r¢rd�tl_ 5lVe,ra' 11ijh Critical Faci@ifies ECC t° a9 "."YFT64�""itdtrka�rd @Bki:d... I II � $�PNi�RiiE9i nOfe; N , v5 ) 2.11 >4 M, Miles Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 49 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -48. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Terrell Hills Leger' 2 { m` 2.5 3 04oduml -$; Ctical FariPies �SF�*N'4Te11B4a0iEW:}Itd t'gi wjwfa RPJio? kkkg `9: .p.. ile's .�+� yip ,zy 0,45 G Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 50 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -49. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Universal City �y y, fj 0- 178.15, 07 k.,15 1A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 51 Critical Facllalle �y y, fj 0- 178.15, 07 k.,15 1A Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 51 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -50. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Von Ormy ,tit*`'? hara eTisfie Fire Intensfty Scale q { 1 jGL-P'gv' 2.,:EY9r'q. i2 �Uym 3k � t9 %rar'49�.jtrw8 N, wrar.- a°wr,Prai ar��aPtn!, 1 �Zl,mc g Jw� �� , } Ls- �:,^:`V�ar N�Ca�tVrx. <. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 52 yy JY� �i��'r' h 3t %.y kr�7N IF Wilily A a#AP7 w6ov 1 �.XJOB;; Xra o-, � dhfa 9t8. atvy�, Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 52 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -51. Fire Intensity Scale Map — Windcrest The Texas Forest Service reported 1,840 wildfire events between 2005 and 2015. The Texas Forest Service (TFS) started collecting wildfire data in 1985 and volunteer fire departments started reporting events after 2005. Due to a lack of recorded data for wildfire events prior to 2005, frequency calculations are based on an eleven -year period, only using data from recorded years. The map below shows approximate locations of wildfires, which can be grass or brushfires of any size (Figure 11 -52). Table 11 -1 identifies the number of wildfires by jurisdiction, and total acreage burned. Table 11 -2 identifies the acreage of suppresses wildfire by jurisdiction and year. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 53 Leger �I Charautwisfac Fire Ind srt4r Ge vtu ",9,40B 1. 1 ow 3.5 u 5 8%rarffig Oritical Fps ®ftes ; ¢rr d inn, a "'A °a'?tl °F'8Cilt4!`�&3$'`r".FRtk EDC ! FPM' � '= tk ire• m�� ardRd :u C'Sa;rrtu`8 At t _ i 0 0.10.2 OA OZ 0.0 The Texas Forest Service reported 1,840 wildfire events between 2005 and 2015. The Texas Forest Service (TFS) started collecting wildfire data in 1985 and volunteer fire departments started reporting events after 2005. Due to a lack of recorded data for wildfire events prior to 2005, frequency calculations are based on an eleven -year period, only using data from recorded years. The map below shows approximate locations of wildfires, which can be grass or brushfires of any size (Figure 11 -52). Table 11 -1 identifies the number of wildfires by jurisdiction, and total acreage burned. Table 11 -2 identifies the acreage of suppresses wildfire by jurisdiction and year. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 53 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -52. Location and Historic Wildfire Events for Bexar County Table 11 -1. Historical Wildfire Events Summary Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 54 Section 11: Wildfire Table 11-2. Acreage of Suppressed Wildfire by Year Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 55 Section 11: Wildfire Probability Wildfires can occur at any time of the year. As the jurisdictions within the County move into wildland, the potential area of occurrence of wildfire increases. With 1,840 events in an 11 year period, an event within Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is highly likely, meaning an event is probable within the next year. Nw, • 1 1 Periods of drought, dry conditions, high temperatures, and low humidity are factors that contribute to the occurrence of a wildfire event. Areas along railroads and people whose homes are in woodland settings have an increased risk of being affected by wildfire. The heavily populated urban areas of Bexar County are not likely to experience large and sweeping fires. Areas outside of city limits and in the unincorporated areas of Bexar County are vulnerable. Unoccupied buildings and open spaces that have not been maintained have the greatest vulnerability to wildfire. The overall level of concern for wildfires is located mostly along the perimeter of the study area where wildland and urban areas Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 56 Section 11: Wildfire interface. Figures 11 -1 through 11 -25 (above) illustrate the areas that are the most vulnerable to wildfire throughout the County. The sparsely populated unincorporated areas of Dowling and Viterbo are capable of experiencing large sweeping fires, especially where areas of vegetation are not maintained. Areas along major highways in Cheek and China, as well as Bexar County, have an increased vulnerability where empty lots and unoccupied areas are located. The following critical facilities (Table 11 -3) are located in the WUI and are more susceptible to wildfire in each participating jurisdiction: Table 11 -3. Critical Facilities Located in WUI by Jurisdiction Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 57 Section 11: Wildfire Within Bexar County, a total of 1,840 fire events were reported from 2005 to 2015. All of these events were suspected wildfires. Historic acreage loss and annualized estimates due to wildfires are presented in Table 11- 4 below. The frequency is approximately 167 events every year. Table 11 -4. Historic Loss Estimates Due to Wildfire z Events divided by 11 years of data. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 58 Section 11: Wildfire Figures 11 -53 through 11 -77 show Bexar County and the threat of wildfire to the County and participating jurisdictions. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 59 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -53. Wildfire Ignition Density — Bexar County Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 60 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -54. Wildfire Ignition Density — Alamo Heights w Was .OU15 0.12A G -4s 0. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 61 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -55. Wildfire Ignition Density — Balcones Heights N\ „ #` -` Le wed N I � ion Density n t 3 'mo &'ale): 1 LU i.. Critical Facilities E OC Wq F ,@FxNrr? SehoW, „. Uky Major HL” : p aox dcrwmi ,t 'i l4*' m e t�i4es n 00.0 -1 0.2 0.3 OA Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 62 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -56. Wildfire Ignition Density — Castle Hills Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 63 Legend Wfldfim Ignition Density 3 Moderate) h� 7IV,,y 1441) Critical Facilities i,� dt`dP��dr.�a'u�RaPws. EOV # Fire iV9MYPk�B.A VFC#iCR 'tiiiiS �Rs�Pf ! G#vW,, y z castle Hift � rkVP��P d",7C4hid t .,.6;1 ldaS 0GA2 25; 0.5 � ,75 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 63 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -57. Wildfire Ignition Density — China Grove Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 64 Legend Wfldfim Ignition Dens ' . 3. Moderate) - I Critical Facilities 'kiln K'¥ FwmCuasag a i�.aute r ss��rsaan�3a"��aar,�,�s�q ' t Kbeptal 67 V "A'as ckw Major H y!� � ":�!iaiWA eti7a�+ ��x�r C3rrvh WEB, Y Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 64 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -58. Wildfire Ignition Density — Converse Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 65 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -59. Wildfire Ignition Density — Elmendorf Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 66 A Legend Nfldfiwe Ignition Oens4 IJUW) � 7ry 1 3,:$h$a�9tr�I.�1, 4 4 t 1 4i } v Vol ;, Critical Facilities F"Or v° a Evamialian Raul& _ Fkre 4, � ag Y. ..33v 5 I,ry Schod 7 i SKemov LARMY i t r� t I t 05.220345 0.9 X1.35 1,8 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 66 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -60. Wildfire Ignition Density — Fair Oaks Ranch Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 67 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11-61. Wildfire Ignition Density — Grey Forest Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 68 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -62. Wildfire Ignition Density — Helotes Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 69 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -63. Wildfire Ignition Density — Hill Country Village Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 70 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -64. Wildfire Ignition Density — Hollywood Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 71 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -65. Wildfire Ignition Density — Kirby Maim Hi0mys N 00.OMt5 0.3 0.45 0 6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 72 tt' Le go nd Wj,,,Idflwe lignin Density iov9 ale) L f } Pk (i Critic-at t Facilities FWe s { ro OF "'M"awntum fink U;ky " Maim Hi0mys N 00.OMt5 0.3 0.45 0 6 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 72 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -66. Wildfire Ignition Density — Leon Valley Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 73 Section 11: Wild /{e Figure 116.Wad,fr Ignition Density - LivleOak duo# \.� / Oak : f7. f7 Sea County IHazard Mitigation ma 2017 1P g 74 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -68. Wildfire Ignition Density — Olmos Park 0 LL050 1r 0.2 0.3 OA Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 75 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -69. Wildfire Ignition Density — Saint Hedwig Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 76 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -70. Wildfire Ignition Density — Sandy Oaks Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 77 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -71. Wildfire Ignition Density — Schertz Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 78 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -72. Wildfire Ignition Density — Shavano Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 79 Legend Wj,,,Idflwe Ignition Density 1,1LOr) 7 jlk h,'; 'aYSB; Critical Faciiitkes }} E00 WN Oii 0 @ 3sred= 6o9,�AA�a .d =t s UIRY 4 shavano PAA s mm, cia my Ix y� u I 00.120.25 G-5 0 1 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 79 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -73. Wildfire Ignition Density — Somerset Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 80 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -74. Wildfire Ignition Density — Terrell Hills Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 81 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -75. Wildfire Ignition Density — Universal City Major Hys m895..raW cdy.. S Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 82 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -76. Wildfire Ignition Density — Von Ormy Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 83 Section 11: Wildfire Figure 11 -77. Wildfire Ignition Density — Windcrest Diminished air quality is an environmental impact that can result from a wildfire event and pose a potential health risk. The smoke plumes from wildfires can contain potentially inhalable carcinogenic matter. Fine particles of invisible soot and ash that are too microscopic for the respiratory system to filter can cause immediate and possibly long term health effects. The elderly or those individuals with compromised respiratory systems may be more vulnerable to the effects of diminished air quality after a wildfire event. Climatic conditions such as severe freezes and drought can significantly increase the intensity of wildfires since these conditions kill vegetation, creating a prime fuel source for wildfires. The intensity and rate at which wildfires spread are directly related to wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity. The severity of impact from major wildfire events can be substantial. Such events can cause multiple deaths, shut down facilities for 30 days or more, and cause more than 50 percent of affected properties to be destroyed or suffer major damage. Severity of impact is gauged by acreage burned, homes and structures lost, and the number of resulting injuries and fatalities. For the Bexar County planning area, the impact from a wildfire event can be considered limited, meaning injuries and /or illnesses are treatable with first aid, shutdown of facilities and services for 24 hours or less, and less than 10 percent of property is destroyed or sustains major damage. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 84 Section 11: Wildfire Assessment of Impacts A wildfire event poses a potentially significant risk to public health and safety, particularly if the wildfire is initially unnoticed and spreads quickly. The impacts associated with a wildfire are not limited to the direct damages. Potential impacts for the planning area include: • Persons in the area at the time of the fire are at risk for injury or death from burns and /or smoke inhalation. • First responders are at greater risk of physical injury since they are in close proximity to the hazard while extinguishing flames, protecting property, or evacuating residents in the area. • First responders can experience heart disease, respiratory problems, and other long term related illnesses from prolonged exposure to smoke, chemicals, and heat. • Emergency services may be disrupted during a wildfire if facilities are impacted, roadways are inaccessible, or personnel are unable to report for duty. • Critical City and /or County departments may not be able to function and provide necessary services depending on the location of the fire, and the structures or personnel impacted. • Non - critical businesses may be directly damaged, suffer loss of utility services, or be otherwise inaccessible, delaying normal operations and slowing the recovery process. • Displaced residents may not be able to immediately return to work, further slowing economic recovery. • Roadways in or near the WUI could be damaged or closed due to smoke and limited visibility. • Older homes are generally exempt from modern building code requirements, which may require fire suppression equipment in the structure. • Some high density neighborhoods feature small lots with structures close together, increasing the potential for fire to spread rapidly. • Air pollution from smoke may exacerbate respiratory problems of vulnerable residents. • Charred ground after a wildfire cannot easily absorb rainwater, increasing the risk of flooding and potential mudflows. • Wildfires can cause erosion, degrading stream water quality. • Wildlife may be displaced or destroyed. • Historical or cultural resources may be damaged or destroyed. • Tourism can be significantly disrupted, further delaying economic recovery for the area. • Economic disruption negatively impacts the programs and services provided by the community due to short and long term loss in revenue. • Fire suppression costs can be substantial, exhausting the financial resources of the community. • Residential structures lost in a wildfire may not be rebuilt for years, reducing the tax base for the community. • Recreational activities and tourism can be unappealing for years following a large wildfire, devastating directly related businesses. • Direct impacts to municipal water supply may occur through contamination of ash and debris during the fire, destruction of aboveground delivery lines, and soil erosion or debris deposits into waterways after the fire. The economic and financial impacts of a wildfire event on local government will depend on the scale of the event, what is damaged, costs of repair or replacement, lost business days in impacted areas, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 85 Section 11: Wildfire planning done by government, businesses, and citizens will contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of a wildfire event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 86 Section 12: Tornado HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 HistoricalOccurrences ............................................................................................................ ..............................4 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................9 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................9 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................13 Tornadoes are among the most violent storms on the planet. A tornado is a rapidly rotating column of air extending between, and in contact with, a cloud and the surface of the earth. The most violent tornadoes are capable of tremendous destruction, with wind speeds of 250 miles per hour (mph) or more. In extreme cases, winds may approach 300 mph. Damage paths can be in excess of 1 mile wide and 50 miles long. The most powerful tornadoes are produced by "Supercell Thunderstorms." Supercell Thunderstorms are created when horizontal wind shears (winds moving in different directions at different altitudes) begin to rotate the storm. This horizontal rotation can be tilted vertically by violent updrafts, and the rotation radius can shrink, forming a vertical column of very quickly swirling air. This rotating air can eventually reach the ground, forming a tornado. Table 12 -1. Tornado Variations N •. r M61- As with thunderstorms, tornadoes do not have any specific geographic boundary and can occur throughout the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. It is assumed that the Bexar County MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 12: Tornado planning area is equally exposed to tornado activity. Bexar County is located in Wind Zone III (Figure 12 -1), where tornado winds can be as high as 200 mph. Figure 12 -1. FEMA Wind Zones in the United States' The destruction caused by tornadoes ranges from light to inconceivable depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the storm. Typically, tornadoes cause the greatest damage to structures of light construction, such as residential homes (particularly mobile homes). Tornado magnitudes prior to 2005 were determined using the traditional version of the Fujita Scale (Table 12- 2). Since February 2007, the Fujita Scale has been replaced by the Enhanced Fujita Scale (Table 12 -3), which retains the same basic design and 6 strength categories as the previous scale. The newer scale reflects more refined assessments of tornado damage surveys, standardization, and damage consideration to a wider range of structures. 1 The black circle indicates the Bexar County planning area. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 12: Tornado Table 12 -2. The Fujita Tornado Scale z Source: http:// www. tornadoproject .com /fscale /fscale.htm Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 12: Tornado Table 12 -3. Enhanced Fujita Scale for Tornadoes Both the Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scale should be referenced in reviewing previous occurrences since tornado events prior to 2007 will follow the original Fujita Scale. The largest magnitude reported within the planning area is F4 on the Fujita Scale, a "Devastating Tornado." Based on the planning areas location in Wind Zone III, the planning area could experience anywhere from an EFO to an EF5 depending on the wind speed. The events in Bexar County have been between FO and F4 (Table 12 -4). Therefore, the range of intensity that the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, would be expected to mitigate is a tornado event with a low to severe risk, an EFO to EF5. i i • \ The National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) is a national data source organized under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is the largest archive available for climate data. Only NCEI reported incidents were factored into this risk assessment. It is likely that a number of occurrences Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 12: Tornado have gone unreported over the past 66 years. Figure 12 -2 identifies the locations of previous occurrences in the Bexar County planning area from 1950 to 2016. A total of 68 events have been recorded by the Storm Prediction Center (NOAA) and the NCEI databases for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. The most significant event reported occurred in Helotes, just west of Bandera Road on April 28, 1953. The F4 tornado was 1,760 yards wide and stayed on the ground for approximately 5 miles. The devastating tornado resulted in 2 deaths and 15 injuries (damage estimates were not available). Figure 12 -2. Spatial Historical Tornado Events, 1950 -20163 3 Source: NOAA Records Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Tornado Touchdowns 1950 -2016 �. Fajlta Saa}w< 0 FO i F F3 F5 urq Tornado Tracks 1950 201$ 2ja Critical Facilities 281 "p, -k EOG `©• � - i Evacuation Route. 429 r r Fire �. jt5t� gyit 'jt }i {jfy�ii;jt+tt.�t'sif;Ph }, GovernmentlMunieipal "I j St s Hospital � �_. } r {sj�3 t 1� } 0 IT Infrastructure: '`43,,. 5� § ",�� 1;3 Police is .. .. '-'' School. 722 Shelter Utility C _ ® Water /Sewage.. , ssa Major Highways Bexar: County 6®h J? N " Mills 18 Lr�r nu 0 1.75 3.5 7 10.5 14 3 Source: NOAA Records Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 12: Tornado Table 12 -4. Historical Tornado Events, 1950 -20164 4 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 12: Tornado Table 12-5. Summary of Historical Tornado Events, 1996 -20165 5 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 12: Tornado Significant Past Events April 28, 1953 — Helotes A strong tornado that developed in Bexar County made landfall in Helotes, just west of Bandera Road on April 2811 1953. The F4 tornado was 1,760 yards wide and stayed on the ground for approximately 5 miles according to news outlets. The official report had the tornado on the ground for approximately one mile. The devastating tornado resulted in 2 deaths and 15 injuries. Damage estimates are not available but news reports indicate total devastation along the path of the tornado. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 12: Tornado September 17, 1988 — Bexar County An F1 tornado touched down in central Bexar County on September 17th, 1988. The tornado was 50 yards wide and stayed on the ground for approximately 6 miles. Three injuries and no fatalities were reported as a result of the tornado. Damage estimates for the event exceeded 25 million dollars. March 19, 2002 — Somerset A series of tornadoes struck the area on March 19th, 2002. Tornado number five, the strongest of the six, was rated as a minimal F2 tornado on the Fujita Scale. The tornado formed about 3.5 miles southwest of the intersection of Loop 1604 and 1 -35. It struck near 7:20 PM along Silver Street and Bravo Street and moved toward the north for 1.5 miles. It apparently weakened periodically, producing a hit - and -miss damage path. It completely destroyed four mobile homes and damaged several others. Thirty injuries were reported as a direct result of the tornado. Damage estimates for the event exceeded two million dollars. Probability Tornadic storms can occur at any time of year and at any time of day, but they are typically more common in the spring months during the late afternoon and evening hours. A smaller, high frequency period can emerge in the fall during the brief transition between the warm and cold seasons. According to historical records, Bexar County experiences a tornado touchdown approximately once every year. This frequency supports a highly likely probability of future events for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. Vulnerability and Impact Because tornadoes often cross jurisdictional boundaries, all existing and future buildings, facilities, and populations in Bexar County are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. The damage caused by a tornado is typically a result of high wind velocity, wind -blown debris, lightning, and large hail. The average tornado moves from southwest to northeast, but tornadoes have been known to move in any direction. Consequently, the vulnerability of humans and property is difficult to evaluate since tornadoes form at different strengths, in random locations, and create relatively narrow paths of destruction. Although tornadoes strike at random, making all buildings vulnerable, three types of structures are more likely to suffer damage: • Manufactured Homes; • Homes on crawlspaces (more susceptible to lift); and • Buildings with large spans, such as shopping malls, gymnasiums, and factories. Tornadoes can possibly cause a significant threat to people as they could be struck by flying debris, falling trees /branches, utility lines, and poles. First responders could also not be able to respond to calls due to blocked roads. Tornadoes commonly cause power outages, which could cause health and safety risks to patients in hospitals or other vulnerable populations that rely on power for medical necessities. The Bexar County planning area features multiple mobile or manufactured home parks throughout the planning area and many participating jurisdictions. These parks are typically more vulnerable to thunderstorm wind events than typical site built structures. In addition, manufactured homes are located sporadically throughout the planning area, including 16 jurisdictions. These homes would also be more vulnerable. The Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 12: Tornado U.S. Census data indicates a total of 19,128 manufactured homes located in the Bexar County planning area, including most participating jurisdictions (Table 12 -6). (Nine of the participating jurisdictions do not feature manufactured homes.) In addition, 44.8% (approximately 302,761 structures) of the single family residential (SFR) structures in the Bexar County planning area were built before 19806. These structures would typically be built to lower or less stringent construction standards than newer construction and may be more susceptible to damages during significant thunderstorm wind events. Table 12 -6. Structures at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau data estimates for 2015. The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated in 2014. Census data is not available for this community. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 12: Tornado The following critical facilities would be vulnerable to tornado events in each participating jurisdiction: Table 12 -7. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction 8 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 12: Tornado The average loss estimate of crops and property is $164,751,688 (in 2016 dollars), having an approximate annual loss estimate of $2,496,238. Based on historic loss and damages, the impact of tornadoes on the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, can be considered "Major," with more than 25 percent of property expected to be destroyed or with major damage, injuries and /or illness that result in permanent disability, and critical facilities shut down for at least 2 weeks. Table 12 -8. Potential Annualized Losses by Jurisdiction, 1950 -2016 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 12: Tornado Assessment of acts Tornadoes have the potential to pose a significant risk to the population and can create dangerous situations. Providing and preserving public health and safety is often difficult. Impacts to the planning area can include: • Individuals exposed to the storm can be struck by flying debris, falling limbs, or downed trees, causing serious injury or death. • Structures can be damaged or crushed by falling trees, which can result in physical harm to the occupants. • Manufactured homes may suffer substantial damage as they would be more vulnerable than typical site built structures. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 12: Tornado • Sub - standard construction may suffer substantial damage as they are not built to code and would be more vulnerable to tornado events than code compliant structures. • Significant debris and downed trees can result in emergency response vehicles being unable to access areas of the community. • Downed power lines may result in roadways being unsafe for use, which may prevent first responders from answering calls for assistance or rescue. • Tornadoes often result in widespread power outages, increasing the risk to more vulnerable portions of the population who rely on power for health and /or life safety. • Extended power outages can result in an increase in structure fires and /or carbon monoxide poisoning, as individuals attempt to cook or heat their home with alternate, unsafe cooking or heating devices, such as grills. • Tornadoes can destroy or make residential structures uninhabitable, requiring shelter or relocation of residents in the aftermath of the event. • First responders must enter the damage area shortly after the tornado passes to begin rescue operations and to organize cleanup and assessments efforts. Therefore, they are exposed to downed power lines, unstable and unusual debris, hazardous materials, and generally unsafe conditions, elevating the risk of injury to first responders and potentially diminishing emergency response capabilities. • Emergency operations and services may be significantly impacted due to damaged facilities, loss of communications, and damaged emergency vehicles and equipment. • County or City departments may be damaged or destroyed, delaying response and recovery efforts for the entire community. • Private sector entities that the County or City and its residents rely on, such as utility providers, financial institutions, and medical care providers may not be fully operational and may require assistance from neighboring communities until full services can be restored. • Economic disruption negatively impacts the programs and services provided by the community due to short and long term loss in revenue. • Damage to infrastructure may slow economic recovery since repairs may be extensive and lengthy. • Some businesses not directly damaged by the tornado may be negatively impacted while roads and utilities are being restored, further slowing economic recovery. • When the community is affected by significant property damage it is anticipated that funding would be required for infrastructure repair and restoration, temporary services and facilities, overtime pay for responders, as well as normal day -to -day operating expenses. • Displaced residents may not be able to immediately return to work, further slowing economic recovery. • Residential structures destroyed by a tornado may not be rebuilt for years, reducing the tax base for the community. • Large or intense tornadoes may result in a dramatic population fluctuation, as people are unable to return to their homes or jobs and must seek shelter and /or work outside of the affected area. • Businesses that are uninsured or underinsured may have difficulty reopening, which results in a net loss of jobs for the community and a potential increase in the unemployment rate. • Recreation activities may be unavailable and tourism can be unappealing for years following a large tornado, devastating directly related local businesses. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 12: Tornado The economic and financial impacts of a tornado event on the community will depend on the scale of the event, what is damaged, costs of repair or replacement, lost business days in impacted areas, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by government, businesses, and citizens will contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of a tornado event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Section 13: Hurricane HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 HistoricalOccurrences ........................................................................................................... ............................... 6 SignificantPast Events ........................................................................................................ ..............................6 Probabilityof Future Events ................................................................................................... ..............................7 Vulnerabilityand Impact ......................................................................................................... ..............................7 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................11 Hazard Description According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a hurricane is an intense tropical weather system of strong thunderstorms with well- defined surface circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 miles per hour (mph) or higher. In the Northern Hemisphere, winds near the Earth's surface circulate counterclockwise. Location The Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is located inland from the coast and is outside of the hurricane wind speed hazard areas. Thus, the Bexar County planning area is in a low risk area for hurricane wind speeds of 90 mph or less. However, Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is susceptible to the indirect threats of a hurricane, including high winds and flooding. Additionally, Bexar County has hosted coastal area residents who evacuate during hurricane events. The Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions, is in a low risk area for tropical storm wind speeds up to 74 mph as shown in Figures 13 -1 to 13 -4. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 13: Hurricane Figure 13 -1. Location of Bexar County Historic Hurricane Tracks, Overview Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 13: Hurricane Figure 13 -2. Location of Bexar County Historic Hurricane Tracks, North Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 13: Hurricane Figure 13 -3. Location of Bexar County Historic Hurricane Tracks, East Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Legend �s ;. Hurricane Tir k ( AA) Tropical Depression Huiri,;ane Calegary 1 Hwrt one Cwegory 2 Hurricand Cmegbry 3 w Rar'd ounly �u3 S �'.. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 13: Hurricane Figure 13 -4. Location of Bexar County Historic Hurricane Tracks, South sm As a hurricane develops, the barometric pressure (measured in millibars or inches) at its center falls and winds increase. If the atmospheric and oceanic conditions are favorable, it can intensify into a tropical depression. When maximum sustained winds reach or exceed 39 mph, the system is designated a tropical storm, given a name, and is closely monitored by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami, Florida. When sustained winds reach or exceed 74 mph, the storm is deemed a hurricane. Hurricanes are categorized according to the strength and intensity of their winds using the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Scale (Table 13 -1). A Category 1 storm has the lowest wind speeds, while a Category 5 hurricane has the highest. However, a lower category storm can inflict greater damage than higher category storms depend- ing on where they strike, the amount of storm surge, other weather they interact with, and how slow they move. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 13: Hurricane Table 13 -1. Extent Scale for Hurricanes' Based on the historical storm tracks for hurricanes and tropical storms, as well as the location of the Bexar County planning area, the average extent to be mitigated is a Category 1 storm. Previous occurrences include storms that had a direct path through the Bexar County study area. Table 13 -2 below lists the storms that have impacted the Bexar County planning area from 1950 through 2016. Table 13 -2. Historic Hurricane /Tropical Storm Events, 1950 -20162 Significant Past Events Tropical Storm Erin, August 16 -17, 2007 — Bexar County Tropical Storm Erin moved inland near Port Aransas on the morning of August 16th and continued toward the northwest, in the general direction of San Antonio. By noon, the remnants of Erin were located near Pleasanton in Atascosa County with winds near 30 mph, and moving toward the northwest near 14 mph. What was left of Erin was estimated to be in the Rocksprings area by midnight that night and just south of Ozona on the morning of August 17th. The track of highest rain totals associated with Erin over South Central Texas began in Karnes County and streamed northwestward across Wilson, Bexar, Kendall, Bandera, Medina, Gillespie, and Kerr Counties. 1 Source: National Hurricane Center 2 Damages reported in 2016 dollar values. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 13: Hurricane Extremely heavy rainfall associated with the remains of Tropical Storm Erin spread across Bexar County on the 16th and into the 17th of August, with a general 4 to 5 inch rain over the county. Totals of up to 8 inches were reported at several locations in the south and west parts of San Antonio as well as between Helotes and Leon Springs. By 2 PM, most roads in the northwest part of Bexar County were closed. By 3:30 PM that afternoon, more than 39 high water rescues were reportedly underway in Bexar County. Water was almost waist -deep at Southcross Boulevard in San Antonio. Floodwaters were so deep and running so swiftly at the San Antonio High School West Campus that a masonry wall collapsed and filled the school with almost five feet of muddy water. Hallways were flooded, and desks, computers, and boxes were tossed and thrown together. A young man was driving to work in the mid - afternoon of August 16th when his vehicle struck a guardrail on Southwest Military Drive and was knocked into Six Mile Creek near South Flores Street. The young man called his family to say he had an accident, then exited the vehicle but drowned as he attempted to move to higher ground. Near midnight a young woman was driving with three friends and a baby near North Star Mall when she accidentally drove her sport utility vehicle into deeper water where it was slammed against a bridge and then was swept into a drainage ditch. The three other adults in the vehicle were able to get the baby out of the vehicle through the window and escape. When the three looked back for the driver, she was gone. Her body was found later by emergency responders when the water receded. Hurricane Hermine, September 3 -9, 2010 — Bexar County Tropical storm Hermine made landfall near the Texas /Mexico border on the night of September 6th. The storm moved northward through South Texas into South Central Texas. Strong winds and flooding rain began in South Central Texas on September 7th. On September 8th the winds subsided, but the flooding rain continued as the remnants of Hermine moved northward into Oklahoma. South Central Texas was hit very hard with widespread rains of 8 -12 inches across much of the 1 -35 corridor from Austin down to San Antonio. Heavy rain produced flash flooding of Cibolo Creek along the Bexar and Comal County border, resulting in one death. A man was killed when his vehicle was swept off FM1863 at the low water crossing approximately one quarter mile east of Beck Road. After successfully driving through another flooded crossing a few moments earlier, he entered the flood waters and was swept away. More than 50 roads were closed throughout the planning area due to flooding and multiple high water rescues were required. Over 100,000 customers lost power in the county. Probability of Based on historical occurrences of significant hurricane wind events, the probability of future events is occasional, with a frequency of occurrence of one event probable in the next five years. * .r r1ji =611 Hurricanes and Tropical storms can cause major damage to large areas; hence all existing buildings, facilities, and populations are equally exposed and vulnerable to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. The Bexar County planning area features multiple mobile or manufactured home parks throughout the planning area and many participating jurisdictions. These parks are typically more vulnerable to thunderstorm wind events than typical site built structures. In addition, manufactured homes are located sporadically throughout the planning area, including 16 jurisdictions. These homes would also be more vulnerable. The U.S. Census data indicates a total of 19,128 manufactured homes located in the Bexar County planning area, including most participating jurisdictions (Table 13 -3). (Nine of the participating jurisdictions do not feature manufactured Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 13: Hurricane homes.) In addition, 44.8% (approximately 302,761 structures) of the single family residential (SFR) structures in the Bexar County planning area were built before 1980.3 These structures would typically be built to lower or less stringent construction standards than newer construction and may be more susceptible to damages during significant thunderstorm wind events. Table 13 -3. Structures at Greater Risk by Jurisdiction 3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau data estimates for 2015 4 The City of Sandy Oaks was incorporated in 2014. Census data is not available for this community. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 13: Hurricane The following critical facilities would be vulnerable to hurricane events in each participating jurisdiction, respectively. Table 13 -4. Critical Facilities by Jurisdiction 5 County totals include all participating jurisdictions, unincorporated areas, and the City of San Antonio. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 13: Hurricane Table 13 -5 shows impact or loss estimation for storms impacting the county. Damages are reported on a countywide basis and are not available for each participating jurisdiction. Annual loss estimates were based on the 66 year reporting period for such damages (Table 13 -2). The average annual loss estimate for Bexar County, which includes all participating jurisdictions, is approximately $266,381. Table 13 -5. Summary of Hurricane Events and Potential Annualized losses, 1950 -20166 While the potential severity of impact from a hurricane for the Bexar County planning area is considered minor, the historical fatalities support a substantial severity of impact; meaning multiple deaths, complete shutdown of critical facilities and services for 30 days or more, and more than 50 percent of property would be destroyed or have major damage. 6 Values are in 2016 dollars. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 13: Hurricane Assessment of Impacts Hurricane events have the potential to pose a significant risk to people, and can create dangerous and difficult situations for public health and safety officials. Impacts to the planning area can include: • Individuals exposed to the storm can be struck by flying debris, falling limbs, or downed trees, causing serious injury or death. • Structures can be damaged or crushed by falling trees, which can result in physical harm to the occupants. • Driving conditions in all jurisdictions may be dangerous during a hurricane or tropical storm event, especially over elevated bridges, heightening the risk of injury and accidents during events. • Significant debris and downed trees can result in emergency response vehicles being unable to access areas of the community. • Downed power lines may result in roadways being unsafe for use, which may prevent first responders from answering calls for assistance or rescue. • Hurricane events often result in widespread power outages, increasing the risk to more vulnerable portions of the population who rely on power for health and /or life safety. • Extended power outages often result in an increase in structure fires and carbon monoxide poisoning, as individuals attempt to cook or heat their homes with alternate, unsafe cooking or heating devices, such as grills. • Extreme hurricane events may rupture gas lines and down trees and power lines, increasing the risk of structure fires during and after a storm event. • First responders are exposed to downed power lines, unstable and unusual debris, hazardous materials, and generally unsafe conditions. • Emergency operations and services may be significantly impacted due to damaged facilities and /or loss of communications. • Critical staff may be unable to report for duty, limiting response capabilities. • City or county departments may be damaged, delaying response and recovery efforts for the entire community. • Private sector entities that the county, cities and its residents rely on, such as utility providers, financial institutions, and medical care providers may not be fully operational and may require assistance from neighboring communities until full services can be restored. • Economic disruption negatively impacts the programs and services provided by the community due to short and long term loss in revenue. • Some businesses not directly damaged by the hurricane may be negatively impacted while roads are cleared and utilities are being restored, further slowing economic recovery. • Older structures built to less stringent building codes may suffer greater damage as they are typically more vulnerable to hurricane damage. • Large scale hurricanes can have significant economic impact on the affected area, as it must now fund expenses such as infrastructure repair and restoration, temporary services and facilities, overtime pay for responders, as well as normal day -to -day operating expenses. • Businesses that are more reliant on utility infrastructure than others may suffer greater damages without a backup power source. The economic and financial impacts of a hurricane on the area will depend entirely on the scale of the event, what is damaged, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 13: Hurricane level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by the county, communities, local businesses, and citizens will also contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of any hurricane event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 HazardDescription .................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Location.................................................................................................................................. ..............................2 Extent..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 HistoricalOccurrences ........................................................................................................... .............................43 Probabilityof Future Events .................................................................................................. .............................43 Vulnerabilityand Impact ........................................................................................................ .............................43 Assessmentof Impacts ...................................................................................................... .............................44 1 68 . 1 4 i Dams are water storage, control, or diversion structures that impound water upstream in reservoirs. Dam failure can take several forms, including a collapse of or breach in the structure. While most dams have storage volumes small enough that failures have few or no repercussions, dams storing large amounts can cause significant flooding downstream. Dam failures can result from any one or a combination of the following causes: • Prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding, which cause most failures; • Inadequate spillway capacity, resulting in excess overtopping of the embankment; • Internal erosion caused by embankment or foundation leakage or piping; • Improper maintenance, including failure to remove trees, repair internal seepage problems, or maintain gates, valves, and other operational components; • Improper design or use of improper construction materials; • Failure of upstream dams in the same drainage basin; • Landslides into reservoirs, which cause surges that result in overtopping; • High winds, which can cause significant wave action and result in substantial erosion; • Destructive acts of terrorism; and, • Earthquakes, which typically cause longitudinal cracks at the tops of the embankments, leading to structural failure. Benefits provided by dams include water supplies for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses, flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. At the same time, dams also represent a risk to public safety. Dams require ongoing maintenance, monitoring, safety inspections, and sometimes even rehabilitation to continue safe service. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the water stored behind the dam is capable of causing rapid and unexpected flooding downstream, resulting in loss of life and substantial property damage. A devastating effect on water supply and power generation could be expected as well. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 generated increased focus on protecting the country's infrastructure, including ensuring the safety of dams. One major issue with the safety of dams is their age. The average age of America's 84,000 dams is 52 years. More than 2,000 dams near population centers are in need of repair, according to statistics released in 2009 MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 14: Dam Failure by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.' In addition to the continual aging of dams, there have not been significant increases in the number of safety inspectors, resulting in haphazard maintenance and inspection. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimate that $18.2 billion will be needed to repair all high- hazard dams, but the total for all state dam - safety budgets is less than $35 million .2 The current maintenance budget does not match the scale of America's long -term modifications of its watersheds. Worse still, more people are moving into risky areas. As the American population grows, dams that once could have failed without major repercussions are now upstream of cities and development. I- ICI! The State of Texas has 7,126 dams, all regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Of these, 1,046 are considered "high- hazard," 725 are considered "significant- hazard," and 5,355 are considered "low-hazard" .3 For dams in Bexar County, location, volume, elevation, condition, and classification information were factored into the risk ranking in Figure 14 -1, which illustrates general locations for each dam in the area. Currently, there are 67 dams located in the Bexar County planning area: 35 are classified as "high - hazard", 2 as "significant- hazard ", and 30 as "low- hazard" dams, as determined by the National Inventory of Dams (NID). Low and significant dams in the planning area have no history of failure. In the event of a breach, no loss of life or impact to critical facilities is expected, therefore, these 32 dams will not be profiled. The 35 high hazard dams in the planning area are fully profiled. z Source: Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Journal of Dam Safety. z Source: http: / /www.damsafety.org/ news / ?p= cOfdade4 -ab98- 4679- be22- e3d7fl4el24f 3 Source: http:// www. infrastructurereportcard .org /wp- content /uploads/ 2013 /02/ 2012 - Texas - Report- Card- FINAL.pdf Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -1. Dam Locations in Bexar County 1; " ",-// Table 14 -1. Bexar County Dam Survey 4 Condition provided if available. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Legend Dam Hazard Level High' .� i niLi nt Low Major Highways r County nh 1; " ",-// Table 14 -1. Bexar County Dam Survey 4 Condition provided if available. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 14: Dam Failure Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 14: Dam Failure The extent or magnitude of a dam failure event is described in terms of the classification of damages that could result from a dam's failure; not the probability of failure. For dams with a maximum storage capacity of less than 10,000 acre -feet, the area within one mile of the dam is considered to be at risk to potential dam failure hazards. Dams with a maximum storage capacity between 10,000 and 100,000 acre -feet, the area within 3 miles of the dam is considered to be at risk to potential dam failure hazards. Figures 14 -2 through 14 -36 are inundation maps that show the flood risk areas for each high hazard dam. An estimated depth for dam breach is indicated in the paragraph below Figures 14 -2 through 14 -36.5 5 Dam breach depth is an estimate based on best available data, not statistical data. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -2. Woodlawn Lake Dam Flood Risk Area LOROM sn war+ll L#v*l k* Tye e.— t—,. Fwd tmwrwro Zoo 40"�pb ... 4 F �m35nvw'. 6 8 w&zc -:#mar d+ewe, :t!.k@ arA P"tti�A wasu es.E C.a"A+�'Ynmmnaa%@ws: ^B *aad dub «a'maaa�3..zuas @'4ar.G ce kmrs�c' a� 9�Aretxr':6'�3r�m NV �mxr CesG Nt.. h Woodlawn Lake is on the Alazan Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for recreation purposes. Woodlawn Lake Dam is earthen construction, owned by the City of San Antonio and was constructed in 1961. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 3,417 people, 1,191 housing units, 9 commercial facilities, 1 government facility, 1 nuclear reactor, materials, and waste facility, and 1 manufacturing facility vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 93 feet with a maximum breach flow of 11,152 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -3. Martinez Creek WS SCS Site 2 Dam Flood Risk Area Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 2 Dam is on a tributary of Martinez Creek in San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1964. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be 1 person, 1 housing unit, 1 transportation facility, and 1 dam vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 124.3 feet with a maximum breach flow of 10,580 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -4. Calaveras Creek WS SCS Site 7 Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Watershed SCS Site 7 Dam is on a tributary of Chupaderas Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1956. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be farm land and outbuildings vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 140.4 feet with a maximum breach flow of 5,079 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -5. Victor Braunig Dam Flood Risk Area Fw.mr. !ame. Victor Braunig Dam is on the Arroyo Seco River in the City of San Antonio and is used for recreation purposes. The dam is owned by the City of San Antonio and was constructed in 1963 by earthen construction. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a semi - densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 1,352 people, 565 housing units, and 1 dam vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 381 feet with a maximum breach flow of 547,901 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -6. Martinez Creek WS SVS Site 4 Dam Flood Risk Area Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 4 Dam is on a tributary of Salitrillo Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1964. The extent classification is considered significant and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. While the storage capacity of the dam is considered low, the extent classification is considered significant due to the substantial residential development in the immediate area that could be vulnerable. In the event of dam failure, there would be multiple residential structures and seven commercial structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 155.5 feet with a maximum breach flow of 9,988 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -7. Martinez Creek WS SCS Site 1 Dam Flood Risk Area Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 1 Dam is on Martinez Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1964. The extent classification is significant and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. While the storage capacity of the dam is considered low, the extent classification is considered significant due to the substantial residential and commercial development in the immediate area that could be vulnerable. In the event of dam failure, there would be a wastewater treatment Plant, multiple residential structures and 15 commercial structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 181.5 feet with a maximum breach flow of 14,531 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -8. Martinez Creek WS SCS Site 5 Dam Flood Risk Area Dmw rinfO, L o ft. MOO j "nordB o EM W. a0-1 a IN, n;1: ; :18 ON Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 5 Dam is located on Salitrillo Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1964. The extent classification is considered significant and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. While the storage capacity of the dam is considered low, the extent classification is considered significant due to the substantial residential and commercial development in the immediate area that could be vulnerable. In the event of dam failure, there would be an elementary school, a park, multiple residential structures and 34 commercial structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 162.9 feet with a maximum breach flow of 18,924 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -9. Elmendorf Lake Dam Flood Risk Area Elmendorf Lake Dam is formed by Elmendorf Lake on Apache Creek in San Antonio and is used for recreational purposes. It is owned by the City of San Antonio and was constructed in 1967. It is a concrete structure and the foundation rock and soil. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 4,065 people, 1,346 housing units, 2 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 1 emergency services facility, 7 commercial facilities, 1 government facility, and 2 dams vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 54.1 feet with a maximum breach flow of 2,539 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 10 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 t t } t � Y 1 s i�t } t' ,t, t ti n �t t ,_ � ;L¢ , i a• , Sit . M P t Y J, - , . Y s Elmendorf Lake Dam is formed by Elmendorf Lake on Apache Creek in San Antonio and is used for recreational purposes. It is owned by the City of San Antonio and was constructed in 1967. It is a concrete structure and the foundation rock and soil. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 4,065 people, 1,346 housing units, 2 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 1 emergency services facility, 7 commercial facilities, 1 government facility, and 2 dams vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 54.1 feet with a maximum breach flow of 2,539 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 10 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -10. Martinez Creek WS SCS Site 6A Dam Flood Risk Area Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 6A Dam is on Salitrillo Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1966. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be farm land, approximately two dozen residential structures, and a solar panel farm vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 162.0 feet with a maximum breach flow of 48,597 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -11. Calaveras Creek WS SCS Site 6 Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Watershed SCS Site 6 Dam is on Chupaderas Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1957. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a semi - densely populated area. In the event of dam failure, there would be a church, approximately 50 residential structures and 11 commercial structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 190.60 feet with a maximum breach flow of 13,132 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -12. Calaveras Creek WS SCS Site 10 Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Watershed SCS Site 10 Dam is on Parita Creek in Bexar County and is used for irrigation purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1958. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be minimal structures vulnerable with the primary impact on farm land and out buildings. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 181.3 feet with a maximum breach flow of 20,497 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -13. Calaveras Creek WS SCS Site 3 Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Watershed SCS Site 3 Dam is on Calaveras Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1954. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be approximately two dozen residential structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 182.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 24,571 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -14. Calaveras Creek Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Dam is on Calaveras Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control and recreational purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the City of San Antonio and was constructed in 1969. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. In the event of dam failure, there would be several hundred homes, an elementary school, several parks, a power station, and dozens of businesses vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 511.1 feet with a maximum breach flow of 863,520 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -15. Calaveras Creek WS SCS Site 8 Dam Flood Risk Area Calaveras Creek Watershed SCS Site 8 Dam is on a tributary of Chupaderas Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1954. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be approximately two dozen residential structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 132.8 feet with a maximum breach flow of 12,733 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -16. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 2 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 2 Dam is on Lewis Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1971. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be minimal structures vulnerable with the primary impact on farm land and out buildings. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 211.6 feet with a maximum breach flow of 14,723 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -17. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 4 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 4 Dam is on the Panther Springs Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1972 by earthen construction. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 30,755 people, 14,730 housing units, 7 banking and finance facilities, 32 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 4 energy facilities, 4 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 1 postal and shipping facility, 27 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 9 water facilities, 67 commercial facilities, 10 government facilities, 1 dam, and S nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 207 feet with a maximum breach flow of 4,155 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -18. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 5 Dam Flood Risk Area m rkaw# L ems' Mod 1imard& jf% 1Y�69kar'a' Y�nc..�hs #�. Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 5 Dam is on the Panther Springs Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1976. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 34,238 people, 16,465 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 7 banking and finance facilities, 37 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 6 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 1 postal and shipping facility, 28 healthcare and public health facilities, 2 transportation facilities, 5 water facilities, 79 commercial facilities, 12 government facilities, 4 dams, and 8 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 228.9 feet with a maximum breach flow of 6,909 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -19. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 13A Dam Flood Risk Area ri f� 44 u i Y��gr r a r' 1 i Y 'i �# `%.t ••'�� #�� }fi+ttl��i+ly@ "'fly" f��ti: { 11, ' 4 i 9 Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 13A Dam is on the Elm Waterhole Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1976 by earthen construction. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 26,189 people, 11,677 housing units, 5 banking and finance facilities, 22 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 2 energy facilities, 5 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 24 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 5 water facilities, 45 commercial facilities, 9 government facilities, 2 dams, 8 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 2 manufacturing facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 203.5 feet with a maximum breach flow of 22,849 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -20. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 7 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 7 Dam is on the Panther Springs Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1987. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 12,454 people, 6,118 housing units, 4 banking and finance facilities, 8 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 2 energy facilities, 2 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities,1 postal and shipping facility, 13 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 1 water facility, 28 commercial facilities, 6 government facilities, 2 dams, and 6 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 232.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 2,045 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 f. ; r i t�Jn f � k r t SY�F k �F r � � t� t„ t: r... „ n y{ ;} t .F v w � 2 , Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 7 Dam is on the Panther Springs Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1987. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 12,454 people, 6,118 housing units, 4 banking and finance facilities, 8 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 2 energy facilities, 2 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities,1 postal and shipping facility, 13 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 1 water facility, 28 commercial facilities, 6 government facilities, 2 dams, and 6 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 232.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 2,045 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -21. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 13 B Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 13B Dam is on a tributary of Elm Waterhole Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1976 by earthen construction. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 34,891 people, 15,201 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 6 banking and finance facilities, 29 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 4 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 2 postal and shipping facilities, 32 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 11 water facilities, 67 commercial facilities, 11 government facilities, 3 dams, and 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 165.9 feet with a maximum breach flow of 2,045 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 25 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -22. El Dorado Lake Dam Flood Risk Area El Dorado Lake Dam is location on a tributary of Beitel Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for recreational purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the El Dorado Homes Association and was constructed in 1935 and substantially modified in 1999. While the dam is located in a densely populated area the limited storage capacity and low dam height indicates a low extent classification. In the event of dam failure, there would be several residential structures that could be minimally vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 42.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 230 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 5 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -23. Wildlake Dam Flood Risk Area Wildlake Dam is on Ranch Creek in the City of Helotes and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio Municipal Utility District and was constructed in 1982. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be several residential structures vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 110.8 feet with a maximum breach flow of 20,762 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 27 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -24. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 9 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 9 Dam is on the Mud Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1979. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 33,827 people, 14,781 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 5 banking and finance facilities, 29 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 4 energy facilities, 6 emergency services facilities, 7 communication facilities, 26 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 11 water facilities, 64 commercial facilities, 10 government facilities, 3 dams, 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 2 manufacturing facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 185.0 feet with a maximum breach flow of 6,657 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 28 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -25. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 6 Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 6 Dam is on the Panther Springs Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1979. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 23,930 people, 11,924 housing units, 5 banking and finance facilities, 27 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 3 energy facilities, 5 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities,1 postal and shipping facility, 23 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 5 water facilities, 51 commercial facilities, 9 government facilities, 2 dams, and 8 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 196.7 feet with a maximum breach flow of 7,434 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 29 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -26. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 12 Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 12 Dam is on the Long Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1974. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 42,366 people, 18,439 housing units, 2 agriculture and food facilities, 6 banking and finance facilities, 35 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 6 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 2 postal and shipping facilities, 36 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 12 water facilities, 86 commercial facilities, 13 government facilities, 4 dams, 8 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 3 manufacturing facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 281.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 17,911 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 30 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14-27. Olmos Dam Flood Risk Area Olmos Dam is on the Olmos Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The dam is owned by the City and was constructed in 1926 as a gravity dam, with a foundation of rock and soil. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 28,111 people, 12,566 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 29 banking and finance facilities, 55 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 25 emergency services facilities, 8 communication facilities, 6 postal and shipping facilities, 52 healthcare and public health facilities, 3 transportation facilities, 19 water facilities, 2 national monuments and icons, 217 commercial facilities, 28 government facilities, 3 dams, 13 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 3 manufacturing facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 319.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 260,594 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 31 t P 1 f �a4r at 1 5 t 1 }A E 4 Olmos Dam is on the Olmos Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The dam is owned by the City and was constructed in 1926 as a gravity dam, with a foundation of rock and soil. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 28,111 people, 12,566 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 29 banking and finance facilities, 55 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 25 emergency services facilities, 8 communication facilities, 6 postal and shipping facilities, 52 healthcare and public health facilities, 3 transportation facilities, 19 water facilities, 2 national monuments and icons, 217 commercial facilities, 28 government facilities, 3 dams, 13 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 3 manufacturing facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 319.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 260,594 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 31 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -28. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 10 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 10 Dam is on the Mud Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1994. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 37,618 people, 16,528 housing units, 1 agriculture and food facility, 5 banking and finance facilities, 29 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 4 energy facilities, 6 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 1 postal and shipping facility, 26 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 11 water facilities, 64 commercial facilities, 10 government facilities, 3 dams, 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 1 manufacturing facility vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 228.2 feet with a maximum breach flow of 7,463 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 32 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -29. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 1 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 1 Dam is on Salado Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1975. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, a military training facility would be vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 276.7 feet with a maximum breach flow of 8,538 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 33 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -30. Denman Park Dam Flood Risk Area Denman Park Dam is located on a tributary to the San Antonio River in the City of San Antonio and is used for recreational purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the City of San Antonio and its construction date is unknown. While the dam is located in a densely populated area the extremely limited storage capacity and low dam height indicates a low extent classification. In the event of dam failure, there would be several residential structures that could be minimally vulnerable. No structural damages have occurred or are anticipated in the event of a breach. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 42.0 feet with a maximum breach flow of 1,910 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 10 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 34 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -31. Salado Creek WS NRCS Site 1511 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed NRCS Site 15R Dam is located in the City of San Antonio in McAllister Park and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 2004. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 20,176 people, 9,438 housing units, 3 banking and finance facilities, 17 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 3 energy facilities, 3 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities,1 postal and shipping facility, 22 healthcare and public health facilities, 11 water facilities, 48 commercial facilities, 9 government facilities, 1 dam, and 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 243 feet with a maximum breach flow of 250,724 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 35 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -32. Brooklyn Street Lock and Dam Flood Risk Area Brooklyn Street Lock and Dam are on the San Antonio River and part of the River Walk in the City of San Antonio. The lock and dam is owned and operated by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 2009. The extent classification is considered low since a breach would follow the river course. Therefore, populations, buildings, and infrastructure would not be vulnerable to dam failure. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 46.0 feet with a maximum breach flow of 10,763 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 36 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -33. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 8 Dam Flood Risk Area Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 8 Dam is on the Mud Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1973. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 40,072 people, 17,271 housing units, 2 agriculture and food facilities, 7 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 6 energy facilities, 37 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 14 water facilities, 76 commercial facilities, 11 government facilities, 4 dams, 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 1 manufacturing facility vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 243.7 feet with a maximum breach flow of 10,029 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 37 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -34. Martinez Creek WS SCS Site 3 Dam Flood Risk Area Martinez Creek Watershed SCS Site 3 Dam is on Escondido Creek in Bexar County and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1964. The extent classification is considered low and the area located near the dam is a rural area. In the event of dam failure, there would be several residential structures vulnerable. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 141.1 feet with a maximum breach flow of 14,335 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 38 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -35. White Lake Dam Flood Risk Area White Lake Dam is located on a tributary of San Geronimo Creek in Bexar County and is used for recreational purposes. The dam is privately owned and was constructed in 1970. The extent classification is considered low and a breach would follow the river course. The area located near the dam is a rural area. Populations, buildings, and infrastructure would not be vulnerable to dam failure. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 109.7 feet with a maximum breach flow of 26,267 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 25 feet. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 39 Section 14: Dam Failure Figure 14 -36. Salado Creek WS SCS Site 11 Dam Flood Risk Area F 4Horardbmin h C&- s! ..... „..: ry P'w 4rewssx*'. uo-zvwr ° i��aatarEa�3 "S—Mny Area --e e@°Y'z.:e 7iesard. &°smvfim �w.xmxzamrox a^w� +:. a:r�.,,�s'^aA o a: Salado Creek Watershed SCS Site 11 Dam is on the Elm Creek in the City of San Antonio and is used for flood control purposes. The earthen dam is owned by the San Antonio River Authority and was constructed in 1979. The extent classification is considered high and the area located near the dam is a densely populated area. A dam failure could cause power outages and disrupt utility systems. There would also be 24,027 people, 10,784 housing units, 2 agriculture and food facilities, 6 banking and finance facilities, 31 chemical and hazardous materials facilities, 5 energy facilities, 6 emergency services facilities, 6 communication facilities, 2 postal and shipping facilities, 36 healthcare and public health facilities, 1 transportation facility, 12 water facilities, 72 commercial facilities, 11 government facilities, 3 dams, 7 nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities, and 1 manufacturing facility vulnerable. In the event of a breach, it is estimated the average breach width would be 253.3 feet with a maximum breach flow of 5,051 cubic feet per second according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Dam Break Equation. A dam breach could result in an estimated depth of 0 to 15 feet. Table 14 -3 represents the average extent or magnitude of a dam failure event that could be expected for the Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. The "Extent Classification” column was determined by taking the average of dams in the jurisdiction and weighing low hazard dams as a 1, significant hazard dams as a 2, and high hazard dams as a 3 based on the potential severity, warning time, and duration. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 40 Section 14: Dam Failure Table 14 -3. Extent by Jurisdiction 6 Bexar County Dam inventory includes the City of San Antonio. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 41 Section 14: Dam Failure Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 42 Section 14: Dam Failure I. • -r There are approximately 84,000 dams in the United States today.' Catastrophic dam failures have occurred frequently throughout the past century. Between 1918 and 1958, 33 major U.S. dam failures caused 1,680 deaths. From 1959 to 1965, 9 major dams failed worldwide. Some of the largest disasters in the U.S. have resulted from dam failures. More than 90 dam incidents, including 23 dam failures, were reported in the past 10 years to the National Performance of Dams Program, which collects and archives information on dam performance from state and federal regulatory agencies and dam owners. The State of Texas has not experienced loss of life or extensive economic damage due to a dam failure since the first half of the 20th century. However, there may be many incidents that are not reported and, therefore, the actual number of incidents is likely to be greater. There has not been a recorded dam failure event for the entire Bexar County planning area, including all participating jurisdictions. Probability of Future Events No historical events of dam failure have been recorded in the Bexar County planning area, though the risk of dam failure is monitored closely. Due to the lack of historical occurrences, the probability of a future event is unlikely, meaning an event is possible in the next 10 years. "` . i • There are 67 dams in the Bexar County planning area: 30 of them are considered low hazard dams, 2 are considered significant hazard dams, and 35 considered high hazard dams based on their classification. While low hazard dams are those at which failure or mis- operation probably would not result in loss of human life and would cause limited economic and /or environmental losses, damage to agriculture and housing is possible due to the number of low hazard dams in the planning area. Flooding is the most prominent effect of dam failure. If the dam failure is extensive, a large amount of water would enter the downstream waterways forcing them out of their banks. There may be significant environmental effects, resulting in flooding that could disperse debris and hazardous materials downstream that can damage local ecosystems. If the event is severe, debris carried downstream can block traffic flow, 7 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Dam Safety Program, available at: http: / /www.fema.gov /hazards /damsafety/ Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 43 Section 14: Dam Failure cause power outages, and disrupt local utilities, such as water and wastewater, which could result in school closures. For specific vulnerability, please refer to the narratives below each high hazard dam in this section. Annualized loss- estimates for dam failure are not available; neither is there a breakdown of potential dollar losses for critical facilities, infrastructure and lifelines, or hazardous - materials facilities. Typically, if a major dam should fail, the severity of impact could be substantial. The potential severity of a dam failure in the planning area would be substantial. As a result, a dam breach could result in multiple deaths with facilities being shut down for 30 days or more, and more than 50 percent of property destroyed or damaged. Assessment of Impacts Any individual dam has a very specific area that will be impacted by a catastrophic failure. Dams identified as high or significant hazards can directly threaten the lives of individuals living or working in the inundation zone below the dam. The impact from any catastrophic failure would be similar to that of a flash flood. Potential impacts for the planning area include: • Lives could be lost. • There could be injuries from impacts with debris carried by the flood. • Swift -water rescue of individuals trapped by the water puts the immediate responders at risk for their own lives. • Individuals involved in the cleanup may be at risk from the debris left behind. • Continuity of operations for any jurisdiction outside the direct impact area could be very limited. • Roads and bridges could be destroyed. • Homes and businesses could be damaged or destroyed. • Emergency services may be temporarily unavailable. • Disruption of operations and the delivery of services in the impacted area. • A large dam with a high head of water could effectively scour the terrain below it for miles, taking out all buildings, and other infrastructure. • Scouring force could erode soil and any buried pipelines. • Scouring action of a large dam will destroy all vegetation in its path. • Wildlife and wildlife habitat caught in the flow will likely be destroyed. • Fish habitat will likely be destroyed. • Topsoil will erode, slowing the return of natural vegetation. • The destructive high velocity water flow may include substantial debris and hazardous materials, significantly increasing the risks to life and property in its path. • Debris and hazardous material deposited downstream may cause further pollution of areas far greater than the inundation zone. • Destroyed businesses and homes may not be rebuilt, reducing the tax base and impacting long term economic recovery. • Historical or cultural resources may be damaged or destroyed. • Recreational activities and tourism may be temporarily unavailable or unappealing, slowing economic recovery. The economic and financial impacts of dam failure on the area will depend entirely on the location of the dam, scale of the event, what is damaged, and how quickly repairs to critical components of the economy can be implemented. The level of preparedness and pre -event planning done by the community, local businesses, and citizens will also contribute to the overall economic and financial conditions in the aftermath of any dam failure event. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 44 Section 15: Mitigation Strategy MitigationGoals ...................................................................................................................... ..............................1 Goal1 .................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Goal2 .................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Goal3 ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 Goal4 .................................................................................................................................. ..............................2 Goal5 ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 Goal6 .................................................................................................................................. ..............................3 Mitigation Based on the results of the risk and capability assessments, the Planning Team developed and prioritized the mitigation strategy. At the Mitigation Workshop in November 2016, Planning Team members refined the Plan's mitigation strategy. The following goals and objectives were identified. Goal 1 Protect public health and safety. Objective 1.1 Advise the public about health and safety precautions to guard against injury and loss of life from hazards. Objective 1. Maximize utilization of the latest technology to provide adequate warning, communication, and mitigation of hazard events. Objective 1.3 Reduce the danger to, and enhance protection of, high risk areas during hazard events. Objective L4 Protect critical facilities and services. Goal 2 Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to hazards. Objective dive 2,1 Build and support local partnerships to continuously become less vulnerable to hazards. Objectlive 2.2 Build a cadre of committed volunteers to safeguard the community before, during, and after a disaster. Objective 2. Build hazard mitigation concerns into county planning and budgeting processes. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 15:Mitigation Strategy COcl 3 Increase public understanding, support, and demand for hazard mitigation. Objective 3.1 Heighten public awareness regarding the full range of natural and man-made hazards the public may face. Objective 3.2 Educate the public on actions they can take to prevent or reduce the loss of life or property from all hazards and increase individual efforts to respond to potential hazards. Objective 3.3 Publicize and encourage the adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation measures. Goal Protect new and existing properties. Objective 4.1 Reduce repetitive losses to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Objective 4.2 Use the most cost-effective approach to protect existing buildings and public infrastructure from hazards. Objective 4.3 Enact and enforce regulatory measures to ensure that future development will not put people inharm's way nr increase threats tn existing properties. Goal 5 Maximize the resources for investment inhazandmitigatiun. Objective 5.1. Maximize the use nf outside sources offunding. Objective 5.2 Maximize participation of property owners in protecting their properties. Objective 5.13) Maximize insurance coverage to provide financial protection against hazard events. 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 2 Section 15:Mitigation Strategy Objective SA Prioritize mitigation projects, based on cost-effectiveness and sites facing the greatest threat to life, health and property. Goal Promote growth in a sustainable manner. Objective 6.1 Incorporate hazard mitigation activities into long-range planning and development activities. Objective 6.2 Promote beneficial uses of hazardous areas while expanding open space and recreational opportunities. Objective 63 Utilize regulatory approaches to prevent creation of future hazards to life and property. 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 3 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Summary................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 BexarCounty ........................................................................................................................... ..............................4 Bexar County — County -wide Actions .................................................................................... .............................24 AlamoHeights ........................................................................................................................ .............................37 BalconesHeights .................................................................................................................... .............................52 CastleHills .............................................................................................................................. .............................54 ChinaGrove ........................................................................................................................... .............................60 Converse................................................................................................................................ .............................74 Elmendorf.............................................................................................................................. .............................80 FairOaks Ranch ...................................................................................................................... .............................89 GreyForest ............................................................................................ ............................... ............................104 Helotes................................................................................................... ............................... ............................116 HillCountry Village ................................................................................. ............................... ............................138 HollywoodPark ...................................................................................... ............................... ............................153 Kirby....................................................................................................... ............................... ............................170 LeonValley ............................................................................................. ............................... ............................181 LiveOak .................................................................................................. ............................... ............................189 OlmosPark ............................................................................................. ............................... ............................205 SaintHedwig .......................................................................................... ............................... ............................219 SandyOaks ............................................................................................. ............................... ............................234 Schertz................................................................................................... ............................... ............................241 ShavanoPark ......................................................................................... ............................... ............................253 Somerset............................................................................................................................ ............................... 271 TerrellHills ............................................................................................. ............................... ............................276 UniversalCity ......................................................................................... ............................... ............................285 VonOrmy ............................................................................................... ............................... ............................297 Windcrest........................................................................................................................... ............................... 300 Summary As discussed in Section 2, at the mitigation workshop the planning team and stakeholders met to develop mitigation actions for each of the natural hazards included in the Plan. Each of the actions in this section were prioritized based on FEMA's Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 16: Mitigation Actions (STAPLEE) criteria necessary for the implementation of each action. As a result of this exercise, an overall priority was assigned to each mitigation action. As part of the economic evaluation of the STAPLEE analysis, jurisdictions analyzed each action in terms of the overall costs, measuring whether the potential benefit to be gained from the action outweighed costs associated with it. As a result of this exercise, priority was assigned to each mitigation action by marking them as High (H), Moderate (M), or Low (L). An action that is ranked as "High" indicates that the action will be implemented as soon as funding is received. A "Moderate" action is one that may not be implemented right away depending on the cost and number of citizens served by the action. Actions ranked as "Low" indicate that they will not be implemented without first seeking grant funding and after "High" and "Moderate" actions have been completed. All mitigation actions created by Planning Team members are presented in this section in the form of Mitigation Action Worksheets. More than one hazard is sometimes listed for an action, if appropriate. Actions presented in this section represent a comprehensive range of mitigation actions per current State and FEMA Guidelines, including two actions, per hazard, and of two different types. Table 16 -1. Bexar County and Participating Jurisdictions Mitigation Action Matrix Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #1 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a Bexar County policy for Moderate Estimated Cost: existing Bexar County facilities that calls for reducing Potential Funding Sources: Bexar County Funds electrical load during peak electrical usage during Bexar County Facilities Implementation Schedule: extreme hot weather conditions. Reductions such as Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan; Bexar County Energy Plans turning off unnecessary lights and equipment, raising the air conditioning temperature by a degree, etc., to reduce electrical load to prevent overload blackouts. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County existing facilities Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /tosses Reduce heat risk to employees; reduce on -going utility Avoided): costs; reduce the likelihood of an "Excessive Demand Blackout ". Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce effect on new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bexar County Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County Facilities Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan; Bexar County Energy Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase six fuel tanks and mount them on trailers to be Moderate Estimated Cost: taken to county facilities to run generators and Potential Funding Sources: Grant/budget item equipment if needed for extended outages during BCOEM, Bexar County Facilities Implementation Schedule: disasters or severe weather. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: County facilities Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses It would provide a means to allow 24 hour facilities (jail Avoided): and juvenile centers) to operate during extended outages, reducing the risk of hazardous situations (loss of use of medical equipment, safe food storage, etc.). Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Flood, Thunderstorm Winds, Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Grant/budget item Lead Agency/Department Responsible: BCOEM, Bexar County Facilities Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Incorporated into local Standard Operating Guidelines COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public education program on fire risks and Moderate Estimated Cost: wildland fire mitigation, with the assistance of the Texas Potential Funding Sources: Grant Funding Forest Service. BCOEM -WUI Coordinator BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses The awareness promoted and the completion of the Avoided): identified mitigation projects will significantly reduce the possibility of loss of life in the event of a wildfire. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 /year Potential Funding Sources: Grant Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: BCOEM -WUI Coordinator Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Work with state and local agencies to determine Moderate Estimated Cost: locations to reduce fuel on public and private lands. Potential Funding Sources: Grant Funding Implement fuels reduction program in identified priority BCOEM-WUI Coordinator Implementation Schedule: areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Bexar County Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses The implementation of identified fuels mitigation projects Avoided): will significantly reduce the possibility of a wildfire spreading to residential areas from open space land areas. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000/year Potential Funding Sources: Grant Funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: BCOEM-WUI Coordinator Implementation Schedule: A minimum of four projects per year as they are identified Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a Community Wildfire Moderate Estimated Cost: Protection Plan (CWPP). Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses It will promote awareness and reduce the risk to lives and Avoided): property by educating homeowners about the risk of wildfire and ways to harden their homes. It will also identify mitigation projects to be completed. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: County organizational funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: BCOEM -WUI Coordinator Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase a community utility trailer to assist with brush Moderate Estimated Cost: removal. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses By offering incentive, it could promote the mitigation of Avoided): fuels of private lands, thus reducing the chance of a wildfire destroying homes and property. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Grant, budget item Lead Agency /Department Responsible: BCOEM -WUI Coordinator Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #7 Proposed Action: All participating jurisdictions will work with Bexar Protect new and existing homes and businesses through County to educate local citizens on natural hazards and Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate preparatory actions to reduce risk of injury and property $75,000 /year Potential Funding Sources: loss. The Bexar County -wide Public Education /Outreach Grant funding and Citizen Preparedness programs will be expanded to Bexar County OEM, local emergency managers Implementation Schedule: include natural hazard awareness and mitigation Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County and local Emergency Management Plans techniques. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Improve life safety and reduce risk to the residents of Avoided): Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, through disaster preparedness education and training. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 /year Potential Funding Sources: Organization funding, Homeland Security Grant, other Grant funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County OEM, local emergency managers Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County and local Emergency Management Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County Storm Water Quality Department does an Moderate Estimated Cost: annual aerial assessment of the rivers, creeks, and Potential Funding Sources: Bexar County Storm Water Quality Funds streams in Bexar County. We will add assessing major Bexar County Storm Water Quality in coordination with the City of Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: water impoundment ponds to this annual aerial incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County MS4 SWMP assessment to assess dams within Bexar County and identify possible problem dams for additional assessment. These assessments will be used to identify and implement land use restrictions in the highest risk areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County and the City of Helotes Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /tosses Identify possible dam failure locations and downstream Avoided): residential properties. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Dam Failure, Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Identify potential failure locations and impacted properties Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bexar County Storm Water Quality Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County Storm Water Quality in coordination with the City of Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County MS4 SWMP COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a landscaping policy that calls design new building with drought resistant landscaping Priority (High, Moderate, Low): for all new City- and County -owned landscaping to be as Estimated Cost: $75,000 drought tolerant as possible allowing for the purpose of Local budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: the landscaping and that replacement landscaping of Parks Departments existing unsuitable vegetation be replaced with drought Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: tolerant landscaping. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Increase water conservation; decrease maintenance Avoided): costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Retrofit existing building as maintenance is needed, design new building with drought resistant landscaping Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County Parks /Facilities and City Administration/ Parks Departments Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Existing landscaping maintenance plans and new landscaping plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement policy for new public building Moderate Estimated Cost: construction that encourages the incorporation of heat Potential Funding Sources: Local general funds /budgets reflective roofing, exterior walls, windows and other County and City administration Implementation Schedule: energy efficiencies to mitigate the effects of extreme Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans, County and City Energy Plans heat. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: New public buildings in Bexar County, and all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce heat risk to employees; reduce on -going repair Avoided): costs; reduce on -going utility costs; reduce the likelihood of an "Excessive Demand Blackout ". Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhances new building's ability to withstand extreme heat Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local general funds /budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans, County and City Energy Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on -going 10 -year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes additional future Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: drainage improvement projects and raising flood prone Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans low water crossings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources. Reduce impacts to new and existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENTS These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on-going 10-year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes future buyouts of flood Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: prone residential areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: County-wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on-going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources; Reduce impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12-36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENTS These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #13 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Harden local critical facilities to ensure continuity of Low Estimated Cost: services during extreme events. Actions include but are Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets not limited to storm shutters, window film, surge County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: protectors, roof straps, hail and fire resistant roofing Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plans material, purchase and installation of generator with permanent hook -ups. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County and City Police Stations, Fire Stations, EOCs, and other critical facilities, as necessary Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Protect critical facilities from damages and ensure Avoided): continuity of emergency services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Extreme Heat, Hail, Dam Failure Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 per structure Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #14 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop/create areas of defensible space to prevent Low Estimated Cost: damage due to wildfires. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) of Bexar County or Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: forested/undeveloped vegetated areas in the county and all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of damages to structures in or near the WU1 Avoided): or forested/undeveloped vegetated areas in all participating jurisdictions Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, PDIVI, local operating budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County and City Fire Departments Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #15 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on -going 10 -year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes future installation of a Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: High Water Detection and Warning System. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENTS These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #16 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement policy for new building Moderate Estimated Cost: construction that encourages the incorporation of hail Potential Funding Sources: Local County and City funds resistance construction on roofs, windows, and sky County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: lights. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: New public buildings in Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to employees from flying glass and debris; Avoided): reduce water damage; reduce on -going repair costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New facility enhancement to protect essential resources used in a disaster; reduce impacts to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $125,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local County and City funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan; Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #17 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Construction of covered, wind- resistant parking for first Moderate Estimated Cost: responder and emergency public works vehicles to Potential Funding Sources: County and local funds protect essential assets from hail damage, wind- driven County and City Facilities, as necessary Implementation Schedule: falling objects, thunderstorm winds, tornado, hurricane Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans damage, extreme heat (for vehicles with computer equipment), and other severe weather events. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County and City Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities (as necessary) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents by improving emergency services Avoided): response; reduce on -going repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather events; reduce disaster response time. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $225,000 Potential Funding Sources: County and local funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Facilities, as necessary Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #18 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop a comprehensive Severe Weather Response events Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Plan that addresses both Extreme Heat and Winter Estimated Cost: $12,000 Storm Hazards. This plan would contain preparation, Federal / State Grant Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: response, mitigation, and recovery actions needed to emergency management protect the populace and governmental organizations Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: during extreme temperature events. This plan will Metropolitan Health District Heat Plan identify, designate, and publicize warming and cooling shelters to be utilized during Winter Storms and Extreme Heat events, respectively. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of death and injury during extreme Avoided): temperature events, and provide for governmental continuity of operations during extreme heat and winter storms. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect infrastructure during extreme temperature events Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $12,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal / State Grant Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County OEM and participating jurisdictions' emergency management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: This would complement or replace existing San Antonio Metropolitan Health District Heat Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #19 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Development of a Training Course for Heavy Equipment Moderate Estimated Cost: Use in fighting Wildfire. Course will be developed by the Potential Funding Sources: TxLTAP / Bexar County Funds University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public Works, and participating jurisdictions Implementation Schedule: Works and offered through TxLTAP PW Institute. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County Public Works; University of Texas at Arlington, TxLTAP Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents, Public Works employees and Avoided): equipment; reduce on -going infrastructure repair costs; continue essential services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: TxLTAP / Bexar County Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public Works, and participating jurisdictions Implementation Schedule: Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Course will provide skills, safety, preoperational inspection, driving and steering, hand signaling while operating heavy equipment in a Firefighting Environment. Heavy Equipment includes Track Loaders, Gradalls, and Wheel Loaders. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County — Action #20 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt and implement program to remove tree branches Moderate Estimated Cost: in and around power lines. Inspect electrical Potential Funding Sources: City Public Service (CPS) Maintenance funds transmission structures and infrastructure on a recurring City Public Service (CPS) Implementation Schedule: basis to ensure any potential threat (such as tree Incorporation into Existing Plans: CPS Power Line Maintenance plans branches, signs, poles, vegetation) is removed from the area around power transmission lines and equipment, to prevent such treat from causing damage to power transmission during high winds storms. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions, and outside Bexar County where CPS provides service Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents from power outages; reduce on- Avoided): going repair costs; continue essential utility services during sever weather event Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hail, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New and existing power lines are inspected and cleared; reduce impact of power loss to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Public Service (CPS) Maintenance funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Public Service (CPS) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: CPS Power Line Maintenance plans COMMENTS While the CPS has a current program for this activity, the rapid growth in Bexar County and participating jurisdictions has necessitated an extension of the current program to accommodate the periodic maintenance cycle period to provide for adequate storm preparation for the entire planning area. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Bexar County - County-wide Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County (County-wide) — Action #1 Proposed Action: All participating jurisdictions will work with Bexar Protect new and existing homes and businesses through County to educate local citizens on natural hazards and Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate preparatory actions to reduce risk of injury and property $75,000/year Potential Funding Sources: loss. The Bexar County-wide Public Education/Outreach Grant funding and Citizen Preparedness programs will be expanded to Bexar County OEM, local emergency managers Implementation Schedule: include natural hazard awareness and mitigation Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County and local Emergency Management Plans techniques. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Entire Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Improve life safety and reduce risk to the residents of Avoided): Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, through disaster preparedness education and training. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000/year Potential Funding Sources: Organizational funding, Homeland Security Grant, other Grant funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Bexar County OEM, local emergency managers Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar County and local Emergency Management Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County (County-wide) – Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a landscaping policy that cari—S design new building with drought resistant landscaping Priority (High, Moderate, Low): for all new City- and County-owned landscaping to be as Estimated Cost: $75,000 drought tolerant as possible allowing for the purpose of Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: the landscaping and that replacement landscaping of Parks Departments existing unsuitable vegetation be replaced with drought Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: tolerant landscaping. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: County-wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Increase water conservation; decrease maintenance Avoided): costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Retrofit existing building as maintenance is needed, design new building with drought resistant landscaping Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Bexar County Parks/Facilities and City Administration/ Parks Departments Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Existing landscaping maintenance plans and new landscaping plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 25 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement policy for new public building Moderate Estimated Cost: construction that encourages the incorporation of heat Potential Funding Sources: Local general funds /budgets reflective roofing, exterior walls, windows and other County and City administration Implementation Schedule: energy efficiencies to mitigate the effects of extreme Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans, County and City Energy Plans heat. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: New public buildings in Bexar County, and all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce heat risk to employees; reduce on -going repair Avoided): costs; reduce on -going utility costs; reduce the likelihood of an "Excessive Demand Blackout ". Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhances new building's ability to withstand extreme heat Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local general funds /budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans, County and City Energy Plans COMMENT'S Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County (County-wide) — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on-going 10-year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes additional future Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: drainage improvement projects and raising flood prone Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans low water crossings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: County-wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on-going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources. Reduce impacts to new and existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12-36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENTS These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 27 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on -going 10 -year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes future buyouts of flood Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: prone residential areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources; Reduce impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENT'S These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 28 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions, is High Estimated Cost: engaged in an on -going 10 -year, $500 Million flood Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds control program, which includes future installation of a Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: High Water Detection and Warning System. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going infrastructure Avoided): repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Bexar Regional Watershed Management Flood Control Plans COMMENTS These projects are sponsored and managed by a special committee (the Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM)) which is comprised of high level representatives from the county and all the municipalities and the San Antonio River Authority which includes all participating jurisdictions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 29 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement policy for new building Moderate Estimated Cost: construction that encourages the incorporation of hail Potential Funding Sources: Local County and City funds resistance construction on roofs, windows, and sky County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: lights. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: New public buildings in Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to employees from flying glass and debris; Avoided): reduce water damage; reduce on -going repair costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New facility enhancement to protect essential resources used in a disaster; reduce impacts to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $125,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local County and City funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan; Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 30 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Construction of covered, wind - resistant parking for first Moderate Estimated Cost: responder and emergency public works vehicles to Potential Funding Sources: County and local funds protect essential assets from hail damage, wind- driven County and City Facilities, as necessary Implementation Schedule: falling objects, thunderstorm winds, tornado, hurricane Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans damage, extreme heat (for vehicles with computer equipment), and other severe weather events. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County and City Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities (as necessary) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents by improving emergency services Avoided): response; reduce on -going repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather events; reduce disaster response time. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $225,000 Potential Funding Sources: County and local funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Facilities, as necessary Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 31 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop a comprehensive Severe Weather Response events Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Plan that addresses both Extreme Heat and Winter Estimated Cost: $12,000 Storm Hazards. This plan would contain preparation, Federal / State Grant Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: response, mitigation, and recovery actions needed to emergency management protect the populace and governmental organizations Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: during extreme temperature events. This plan will Metropolitan Health District Heat Plan identify, designate, and publicize warming and cooling shelters to be utilized during Winter Storms and Extreme Heat events, respectively. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire Bexar County, including all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of death and injury during extreme Avoided): temperature events, and provide for governmental continuity of operations during extreme heat and winter storms. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect infrastructure during extreme temperature events Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $12,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal / State Grant Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Bexar County OEM and participating jurisdictions' emergency management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: This would complement or replace existing San Antonio Metropolitan Health District Heat Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 32 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Development of a Training Course for Heavy Equipment Moderate Estimated Cost: Use in fighting Wildfire. Course will be developed by the Potential Funding Sources: TxLTAP / Bexar County Funds University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public Works, and participating jurisdictions Implementation Schedule: Works and offered through TxLTAP PW Institute. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Bexar County Public Works; University of Texas at Arlington, TxLTAP Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents, Public Works employees and Avoided): equipment; reduce on -going infrastructure repair costs; continue essential services during severe weather event; reduce disaster response time; ensure continuation of critical public services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: TxLTAP / Bexar County Funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: University of Texas at Arlington / Bexar County Public Works, and participating jurisdictions Implementation Schedule: Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Course will provide skills, safety, preoperational inspection, driving and steering, hand signaling while operating heavy equipment in a Firefighting Environment. Heavy Equipment includes Track Loaders, Gradalls, and Wheel Loaders. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 33 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt and implement program to remove tree branches Moderate Estimated Cost: in and around power lines. Inspect electrical Potential Funding Sources: City Public Service (CPS) Maintenance funds transmission structures and infrastructure on a recurring City Public Service (CPS) Implementation Schedule: basis to ensure any potential threat (such as tree Incorporation into Existing Plans: CPS Power Line Maintenance plans branches, signs, poles, vegetation) is removed from the area around power transmission lines and equipment, to prevent such treat from causing damage to power transmission during high winds storms. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: County -wide, including all participating jurisdictions, and outside Bexar County where CPS provides service Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents from power outages; reduce on- Avoided): going repair costs; continue essential utility services during sever weather event Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hail, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New and existing power lines are inspected and cleared; reduce impact of power loss to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Public Service (CPS) Maintenance funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Public Service (CPS) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: CPS Power Line Maintenance plans COMMENTS While the CPS has a current program for this activity, the rapid growth in Bexar County and participating jurisdictions has necessitated an extension of the current program to accommodate the periodic maintenance cycle period to provide for adequate storm preparation for the entire planning area. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 34 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County (County-wide) — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Harden local critical facilities to ensure continuity of Low Estimated Cost: services during extreme events. Actions include but are Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets not limited to storm shutters, window film, surge County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: protectors, roof straps, hail and fire resistant roofing Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plans material, purchase and installation of generator with permanent hook-ups. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: County and City Police Stations, Fire Stations, EC)Cs, and other critical facilities, as necessary Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Protect critical facilities from damages and ensure Avoided): continuity of emergency services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 per structure Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: County and City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 35 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Bexar County . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop /create areas of defensible space to prevent Low Estimated Cost: damage due to wildfires. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) of Bexar County or Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: forested /undeveloped vegetated areas in the county and all participating jurisdictions Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of damages to structures in or near the WUI Avoided): or forested /undeveloped vegetated areas in all participating jurisdictions Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: County and City Fire Departments Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plans COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 36 Section 16: Mitigation Actions 08�� MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Distribute commercial and residential drought tolerant Moderate Estimated Cost: or xeriscape landscape practices flyer. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Issued to new residents / business owners in their Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: "welcome to COAH" package Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Information on drought tolerant plants and the water Avoided): saved by using them in a new planting schedule. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50 Potential Funding Sources: COAH Lead Agency/Department Responsible: COAH Building Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Welcome COAH package COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 37 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Distribute public education flyer to students of AHISD on Moderate Estimated Cost: the benefits of turning off the water while brushing your Potential Funding Sources: AHFD teeth. AHFD BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights in coordination with AHISD Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Excessive water loss avoided. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50 Potential Funding Sources: AHFD Lead Agency /Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: N/A COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 38 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: During summer months, educate citizens on how to Moderate Estimated Cost: protect themselves against extreme heat exposures. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Educate via COAH website on different types of heat Avoided): exposure and symptoms they cause. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Managers Assistant Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster management plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 39 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Notify citizens of NOAA Extreme Heat Days. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff Time Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Warn citizens on potential elevated heat days. Within 24 months of plan adoption Avoided): Disaster management plan Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Managers Assistant Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster management plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 40 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Require developers to plan / use site sediment run off Moderate Estimated Cost: protection. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Losses avoided at contractor expense. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New and existing /remodeled buildings Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: COAH Building Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: COAH Permit Process COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 41 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement program for routinely cleaning debris from Moderate Estimated Cost: support bracing under bridges and drainage waterways. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights drainage Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce flood damages by reducing debris in waterways Avoided): which reduces damages resulting from debris filled flood waters and reduces backwater flooding created by debris dam formation. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce damages to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: COAH Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Standard Operating Procedures COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 42 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Warn citizens through the city's website of potential hail Moderate Estimated Cost: events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Situation awareness — warn citizens of potential severe Avoided): weather. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through early warning and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Managers Assistant Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 43 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: During Fire Prevention week, hand out flyers to Moderate Estimated Cost: elementary students on hail safety precautions. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Local elementary schools in City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Educating citizens on hail safety precautions. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50 Potential Funding Sources: AHFD Lead Agency /Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Fire Safety Programs COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 44 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #9 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Notify citizens through City's website portal of hurricane Moderate Estimated Cost: warnings. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Severe weather announcements — warn citizens of Avoided): potential severe weather. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through early warning and disaster preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Managers Assistant Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Severe weather announcements COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 45 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and maintain tree lines as wind buffers on High Estimated Cost: residential streets — 10% of trees over 10 years, then Potential Funding Sources: Local funding start over. AHFD BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce wind damage to structures through natural wind Avoided): buffer mitigation. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce impacts to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land use plan, Annual plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 46 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #11 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Establish standards for utilities regarding tree pruning Moderate Estimated Cost: around lines. Notify CPS of potential dangers of tree Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget limbs that require pruning around powerlines. COAH Code Enforcement BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: Utilities in the City of Alamo Heights Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of downed power lines from tree branches; Avoided): reduce power outages and associated repair costs and damages. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail, Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structure and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $500 Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: COAH Code Enforcement Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 47 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Alamo Heights Fire Department to participate in tornado Moderate Estimated Cost: drills at local schools and provide educational materials Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget to students on tornado safety. AHFD BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights local schools Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Awareness to AHFD on school practices; reduce risk to Avoided): citizens through education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 48 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Participate in "Severe Weather Awareness" week and Low Estimated Cost: provide information to local businesses on tornado risks Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget and safety. AHFD BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Alamo Heights local businesses Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to citizens through education and awareness Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 49 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #14 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: During "Home Safety" inspections, encourage Moderate Estimated Cost: homeowners to install Carbon Monoxide monitors. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Residents in the City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents of carbon monoxide poisoning. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: AHFD Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Home Safety Inspection Program COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 50 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Alamo Heights — Action #15 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Inform citizens through City's website of local storm Moderate Estimated Cost: warnings issued by NOAA. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Alamo Heights Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Inform residents of winter storms and safety measures Avoided): they can take. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Managers Assistant Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 51 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Balcones Heights — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention Low Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Pleasant Road Leisure Drive Bobbies Lane Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2.5 Million Potential Funding Sources: HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 52 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Balcones Heights — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Trim trees and low hanging limbs near public right-of- High Estimated Cost: ways and utility lines to reduce failing limbs during Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HIVIGP severe weather events. Local Fire Department / Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Entire area within the City Limits of Balcones Heights Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce damage to Public Works Avoided): and Public Safety Vehicles; and reduce on-going repair costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HIVIGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Local Fire Department / Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 53 Section 16: Mitigation Actions *T14"Iffewl MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Trim trees and low hanging limbs near public right -of- High Estimated Cost: ways and utility lines to reduce failing limbs during Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HIVIGP severe weather events. Local Fire Department / Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Entire area within the City Limits of Castle Hills Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce damage to Public Works Avoided): and Public Safety Vehicles; and reduce on-going repair costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HIVIGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Local Fire Department / Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 54 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention High Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Phase 1 Watershed 11 — Lockhill Selma to West Avenue Dogwood Drive E. Castle Lane Wisteria Drive Mimosa Drive Krameria Drive Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $3.5 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 55 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention High Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Phase 1 Watershed III — Lockhill Selma to Northwest Military Carolwood and Lockhill Selma Carolwood and Banyan Glentower and N.W. Military Drive Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $3.4 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 56 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention Moderate Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Watershed area on Foxhill Lane Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $728,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 57 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention Moderate Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Watershed area on Lemonwood Drive Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 58 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Castle Hills — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement Flood Control measures such as detention Moderate Estimated Cost: ponds, flood diversion improvements, conveyance Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds improvements, etc., to reduce or eliminate flood Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: damages at various locations throughout the city. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Project locations: Watershed area on Atwater Drive Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residences; reduce flooding; and reduce Avoided): on-going repair costs to streets and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1.3 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP grants, bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works / Streets and Drainage Committee Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 59 Section 16: Mitigation Actions x9r1 'u t MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #1 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate property owners of benefits of properly Moderate Estimated Cost: insulating houses and structures, outside faucets, and Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget pipes. City Council BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Prevent damages and lower utility bills through education Avoided): and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Public Education, SOP COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 60 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide a location / building for vulnerable populations Moderate Estimated Cost: during extreme heat or severe winter storms. Publicize Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget availability of heating /cooling center. Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall or Fire Department Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Provide protection and relief to vulnerable residents; Avoided): reduce potential injury or illness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 per event Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 61 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate property owners on plumbing leaks and Moderate Estimated Cost: detection. Provide assistance to low income citizens in Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local budgets, private donations need of repairs. City Council BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce unnecessary water waste due to leaks. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Structure and Infrastructure Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 [500 homes at $20 per home] Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local budgets, private donations Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Use Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 62 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt plan to enforce water conservation in accordance Moderate Estimated Cost: with SAWS rules and City of San Antonio. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Improve water conservation during drought. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Minimal —Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 63 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Acquire and install high water warning signs at low water Moderate Estimated Cost: crossings. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Water crossings: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: FM 1516 Triple Bend Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of injury or death during flood events. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,200 Potential Funding Sources: Local budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 64 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Clear all drainage culverts of debris to allow run-off with Moderate Estimated Cost: TECQ permission. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damages to structures and infrastructure through Avoided): improved drainage flow and reduce backwater flooding. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budget, Federal grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 65 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #7 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install lightning rods and surge protectors in critical Moderate Estimated Cost: facilities. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall, Fire Department Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to critical facilities; ensure continuity of Avoided): services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Infrastructure Improvement Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 66 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove dead or hazardous trees near roadways and Moderate Estimated Cost: hanging in right-of-way or over utility lines. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damages to structures, cost of clearing debris, and Avoided): reduction in power outages and associated costs; fuels reduction. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Tornado, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Forestry Service, Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council in coordination with CPS Energy Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 67 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide covered parking for police, fire and other city Moderate Estimated Cost: vehicles. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to public vehicles and equipment. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to city vehicles Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Federal grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Infrastructure Improvement Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 68 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Community education regarding replacing roofs with Moderate Estimated Cost: hail resistant materials. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to residential structures through Avoided): education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 69 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #11 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Strengthen building code to include restrictions on Moderate Estimated Cost: commercial structures and hazardous materials storage Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets, Building Permit Fees and requirements for fire safety such as fire prevention City Council Implementation Schedule: plan, number of extinguishers and smoke detectors. Incorporation into Existing Plans: Building Codes Require fire resistant materials in new commercial development. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damages resulting from structural fires. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets, Building Permit Fees Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Building Codes COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 70 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate citizens on prevention of wildfires, proper use of Low Estimated Cost: fire extinguishers, and outdoor burning rules. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damages resulting from fires; reduce number of Avoided): wildfires. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council and Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 71 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #13 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt improved building codes to require wind resistant Moderate Estimated Cost: building techniques. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damages to future structures through improved Avoided): building techniques. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Building Codes, Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 72 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: China Grove — Action #14 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Require safe rooms in all new construction. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $5,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk or injury or loss of life. Within 24 months of plan adoption Avoided): Building Codes, Local Ordinances Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets, Permit Fees Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Building Codes, Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 73 Section 16: Mitigation Actions W 111,111 ` : .* MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #1 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Promote use of drought resistant vegetation and Low Estimated Cost: landscaping to reduce water consumption and control Potential Funding Sources: City Budget erosion. Implement policy requiring drought resistant Building Department Implementation Schedule: landscaping at new public buildings. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Erosion control and water conservation. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural Systems Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce effect of drought on new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Building Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 74 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Public Education about all Natural Hazards that can Low Estimated Cost: impact the city, Fire Prevention, CPR and First Aid, Potential Funding Sources: City Budget including NFIP Community assistance, education and City Administration Implementation Schedule: monitoring. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents through education and Avoided): preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: City Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 75 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install misting systems on pavilions at city parks. Low BACKGROUND INFORMATION $25,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City Park and North Park Pavilions Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Provide shaded and cooled areas for public during times Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): of extreme heat. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, City Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 76 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Acquire and install water level sensing automatic gates Moderate Estimated Cost: at all low water crossings in the city. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents and manpower requirements on Avoided): City Staff in event of flooding. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 77 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Hardening of generators at critical infrastructure sites. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $80,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City Hall, Police Department, Fire Stations, and well sites Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Continue essential utility services during severe weather Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): events; reduce disaster response times. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $80,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, City Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 78 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Converse — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Convert to underground utilities. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $45,000,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; continue essential utility services Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): during severe weather events; reduce disaster response time. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail, Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $45,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 79 Section 16: Mitigation Actions grew-ITIN 1 MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide a location/building for vulnerable populations Moderate Estimated Cost: during extreme heat or severe winter storms. Publicize Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget availability of heating/cooling center. Collect (through City Administration Implementation Schedule: donations) and distribute fans to vulnerable populations Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan during extreme heat events. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Provide protection and relief to vulnerable residents; Avoided): reduce potential injury or illness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 per event Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of I to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 80 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove dead or hazardous trees near roadways and Moderate Estimated Cost: hanging in right -of -ways or over utility lines. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to structures, cost of clearing debris, and Avoided): reduction in power outages and associated costs; fuels reduction. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Tornado, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Forestry Service, local budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration in coordination with CPS Energy Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 81 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide covered parking for police, fire and other city Moderate Estimated Cost: vehicles. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: 8304 FM 327 Elmendorf, TX 78112 Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to public vehicles and equipment. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to city vehicles Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Federal grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 82 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf , Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct a multi- hazard education program for the High Estimated Cost: community to minimize bodily injury or death and Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets, HMGP, PDM mitigate property damages. City Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to property and limit injuries to citizens Avoided): through education and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Hail, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets, HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 83 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Utilize city website and other social media platforms to Moderate Estimated Cost: provide early warning for severe weather events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to property and limit injuries to citizens Avoided): through early warning and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Hail, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 84 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement drainage improvements throughout the Moderate Estimated Cost: flood prone areas of the city where drainage systems are Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM inadequate. Implement stream restoration and/or bank City Administration Implementation Schedule: stabilization to ensure adequate drainage capacity and Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan reduce risk of flooding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide, various locations Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate repetitive flood damages to Avoided): structures and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 85 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt water contingency plan to include water Low Estimated Cost: conservation methods, water rationing, etc. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce water usage during drought. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 86 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement plan for periodic inspection and maintenance Low Estimated Cost: of fire hydrants to ensure proper function during Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget emergency. Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce wildfire risk. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 87 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Elmenclorf Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Acquire and install early warning sirens. Low BACKGROUND INFORMATION $25,000 Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce tornado injury and fatalities through early Within 48 months of plan adoption Avoided): warning. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Federal Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 88 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve low water crossing areas to provide better High Estimated Cost: drainage. Improvements will be determined per site, but Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenues, Grants, Storm Utility may include box culverts, elevated crossings, drainage Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: improvements, bridges, etc. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: 4 locations with the City of Fair Oaks Ranch: 1 Cibolo Creek Crossing, 2 Post Oak Creek Crossings, and 1 Unnamed Tributary Crossing Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of vehicle and life related damages due to Avoided): high water at these crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flooding risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenues, Grants, Storm Utility Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Capital Improvement Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 89 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Create a web -based GIS Map for all low water crossings. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $5,000 Jurisdiction /Location: Include on the Map: Lead Agency /Department Responsible: GIS Department — Fair Oaks Ranch 4 locations within the City of Fair Oaks Ranch Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding incorporation into Existing Plans: 1 Cibolo Cree Crossing, 2 Post Oak Creek Crossings, 1 unnamed Tributary Crossing Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Offer quick views and proposed alternate routes during Avoided): high rain events; improve flood risk assessment and increase awareness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Storm Utility Lead Agency /Department Responsible: GIS Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding incorporation into Existing Plans: City Capital Improvements Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 90 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install flow gauges and early warning detection in order High Estimated Cost: to remotely assess flood waters and potential road Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, budget closures. Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: 4 locations within the City of Fair Oaks Ranch: 1 Cibolo Creek Crossing, 2 Post Oak Creek Crossings, and 1 unnamed Tributary Crossing Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of vehicle and life related damages due to Avoided): high water at these crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $800,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Capital Improvements Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 91 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair .. , Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Survey and remove hazardous trees from drainage Moderate Estimated Cost: areas. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City Floodplain Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of large debris impeding the drainage system Avoided): or damaging structures or infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk of damage to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Storm Water Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 2; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 2 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 92 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Require the installation of lightning rods in high risk Low Estimated Cost: areas. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Lightning strike prone areas Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of property damage caused by lightning Avoided): strikes. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk of damage to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: Grants, Local Revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Building Codes Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Storm Water Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 93 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt campaign for routine fire hydrant inspection, Moderate Estimated Cost: maintenance and upgrades /improvements. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide fire hydrants Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure fire hydrants are well worked and functional in Avoided): case of emergency; replace or repair as necessary. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $8,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Water Utility Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Capital Improvement Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible =3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 94 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a Wildfire Community Education Program. Low BACKGROUND INFORMATION $3,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Improve the knowledge of local residents when it comes Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): to preventing wildfires. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Department of Public Safety — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Resident Education Programs COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 95 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a Water Conservation Community Education Moderate Estimated Cost: Program. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Improve the knowledge of local residents when it comes Avoided): to saving water during times of drought. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Resident Education Programs COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 96 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #9 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop an Incentive Program for using and applying Moderate Estimated Cost: Water Use Data from City SMART Meters. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Residents on the City Water System Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Provide a useful tool to residents in order to save water Avoided): during times of drought. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce effect to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Water Utility Fund Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's SMART Meter Implementation Program COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 97 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve CODE RED alert system to include Tornado Moderate Estimated Cost: warnings to more residents. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Provide quick and accurate updates to residents to Avoided): decrease loss of life and property damage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through early warning Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Department of Public Safety — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Emergency Action Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 98 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public on Tornado Action Plans and Moderate Estimated Cost: Preparedness. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Educate residents to decrease loss of life and property Avoided): damage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce effect on existing structure through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Department of Public Safety — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Emergency Action Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 3; Economically Sound = 2; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 99 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #12 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update City Building Permit requirements to include Low Estimated Cost: shatter resistant glass and materials for hail damage Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, budget protection. Building Codes Department — Fair Oaks Ranch BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of broken debris injuring citizens. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Building Codes Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Policy Adjustment Planning COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal = 3; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 100 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #13 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide larger canopies for entire city vehicle fleet Low BACKGROUND INFORMATION $25,000 Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall Building Areas Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce vehicle damage for First Responders and Public Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): Works employees. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Winter Storm, Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Capital Improvement Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 101 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #14 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade City equipment and raw material for combating Low Estimated Cost: frozen roads. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City equipment for use City -wide Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses City assets can be upgraded to provide better service Avoided): when de -icing roads. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Department — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Emergency Action Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 102 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Fair Oaks Ranch — Action #15 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Analyze the effectiveness of winter storm protocol and Low Estimated Cost: consider ordinance adjustments. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Respond quickly to ensure City thoroughfare is clear and Avoided): open to traffic. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, Grants, Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Department of Public Safety — Fair Oaks Ranch Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Emergency Action Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 3; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 103 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install and maintain flood gates at low water crossings. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $1,000 Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of injury and fatalities at low water crossings; Within 24 months of plan adoption Avoided): reduce cost of man hours to manually barricade flooded crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Operations COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 104 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement schedule for cleaning and clearing drain High Estimated Cost: pipes, culverts and debris at bridges to ensure maximum Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget drainage capacity. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Monthly after plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce flood damages to structures and infrastructure. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Monthly after plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Maintenance and Operations COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 105 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Expand program to trim trees hanging in right -of -way High Estimated Cost: throughout the city. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Quarterly after plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages associated with falling tree limbs and Avoided): power outages; keep roadways passable. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Quarterly after plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Maintenance and Operations COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 106 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a plan for periodic inspection and Low Estimated Cost: maintenance of fire hydrants to ensure proper function Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget during emergency. District 8 Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Monthly after plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce wildfire risk. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: District 8 Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Monthly after plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Maintenance and Operations, Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 107 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement and enforce burn bans within the city limits. High BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff Time Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce wildfire risk. Within 12 months of plan adoption Avoided): Local Ordinance Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 108 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement plan to regularly check for leaks in the city High Estimated Cost: water system. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce /prevent unnecessary water loss. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Grey Forest Utilities Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Standard Operating Procedures COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 109 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #7 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt ordinance to control water usage during droughts. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff Time Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce /prevent overuse of water during drought. Within 24 months of plan adoption Avoided): Local Ordinance Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 110 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct a multi- hazard education program for the Low Estimated Cost: community to minimize bodily injury or death and Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets, HMGP mitigate property damages. Utilize available FEMA City Community Board Implementation Schedule: literature to reduce costs. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to property and limit injuries to citizens Avoided): through education and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Hail, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets, HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Community Board Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Operations Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 111 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify and publicize acceptable shelter locations for Low Estimated Cost: use during extreme weather events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 36 -48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets, HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Community Board Implementation Schedule: Within 36 -48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Operations Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 112 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide covered parking for police, fire, and other city Low Estimated Cost: vehicles and equipment. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall, Public Works Yard Within 48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to public vehicles and equipment Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to city vehicles Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $3,500 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Federal grants, local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 113 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conserve and utilize easements and adopt additional Moderate Estimated Cost: land use restrictions to prevent development in known Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue high risk areas. City Council BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages in high risk areas through development Avoided): restrictions. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 114 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Grey Forest — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Organize volunteers to reach out to vulnerable Moderate Estimated Cost: populations for welfare checks during extreme heat Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue events. City Community Board BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to vulnerable populations. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Community Board Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Operations COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 115 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Im =01 � MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Perform Antonio Drive Drainage Improvements by High Estimated Cost: installing one of two options: Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HIVIGP, PDIVI Option A: 10% annual chance design storm by replacing Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: the low water crossing with a bridge, low chord Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan elevation of 1039.5 feet. Option B: 1% annual chance design storm by replacing the low water crossing with a bridge, low chord elevation of 1043.5 feet. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Antonio Drive crossing of Los Reyes Creek, west of Old Bandera Road Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the risk of damages to structures and Avoided): infrastructure in the immediate area and preserve emergency access route. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Option A: $2,306,000; Option B: $2,982,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HIVIGP, PDIVI Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan COMMENTS The Antonio Drive low water crossing at Los Reyes Creek floods frequently, limiting access for nearby residences and critical SAWS water facility. The culverts are also susceptible to clogging from debris. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 116 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bandera Road / Cedar Trail Drainage Improvements: High Estimated Cost: Installation of five (5), 5-foot by 6-foot box culverts at Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HIVIGP, PDIVI the Bandera Road (S.H. 16) crossing of French Creek Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Tributary B along with the removal of a low water incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan crossing and drop structure north of Bandera Road and 1,140 feet of channel improvements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Bandera Road (State Highway 16) at French Creek Tributary B near the intersection with Cedar Trail Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the risk of damages to structures and Avoided): infrastructure in the immediate area and reduce risk to citizens traveling across low water crossing. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $1,220,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HIVIGP, PDIVI Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan COMMENTS The intersection of Bandera Road and Cedar Trail frequently floods. A hydrologic and hydraulic study was performed in 2013 to identify modifications to the drainage infrastructure to alleviate flooding. The proposed solution was designed for the 4% annual chance storm event. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 117 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Parrigin Road Drainage Improvements: High Estimated Cost: Option A: 10% annual chance design storm; install five Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM (S), 6 -foot by 4 -foot culverts. Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Option B: 1% annual chance design storm; install a incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan prefabricated arch bridge with a width of 36 feet and a height of 7.39 feet. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Parrigin Road low water crossing of Helotes Creek Tributary A near Indian Trail Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk of damages to structures and Avoided): infrastructure in the immediate area and reduce risk to citizens traveling across low water crossing. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Option A: $423,000; Option B: $1,053,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Flood Risk Reduction Plan COMMENTS The Parrigin Road low water crossing at Helotes Creek Tributary A floods frequently, limiting access for nearby residences. The ends of the existing culvert have become damaged and exposed and are at risk for more damage. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 118 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install three (3) sets of solar powered, remotely High Estimated Cost: operated flood gates. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Three (3) low water crossings along Scenic Loop Road Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: north of Bandera Road (S.H. 16) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Scenic Loop Road floods in several locations when Helotes Avoided): Creek overtops its banks. Bexar County installed flood gates in one (1) location and the City of Helotes installed flood gates in (2) locations to reduce the number of vehicles entering flood waters. The gates require manual operation, but during the events, the flooded road prevents emergency personnel from accessing the gates on the far side of the flooded area. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to residents Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $210,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 119 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study of Culebra High Estimated Cost: Creek Tributary C for: Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Beverly Hills Drive Drainage Improvements Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Doheny /FM 1560 Drainage Improvements Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan FM 1560 Drainage Improvements Validation and update of DFIRM hydrologiv model and extension of DFIRM hydraulic model. Survey will be needed for structures within the hydraulic model limits. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Culebra Creek Tributary C from 2,800 feet upstream of Galm Road to upstream of Beverly Hills Drive Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Three low water crossings of Culebra Creek Tributary C Avoided): experience frequently flooding: Beverly Hills Drive, Doheny at FM 1560, and FM1560. A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic study is needed to determine appropriate drainage improvements. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $65,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 120 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study of Unnamed High Estimated Cost: Tributary 3 to Helotes Creek for: Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Braun Road / Leslie Road drainage improvements Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Validation and update of DFIRM hydrologic model and Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan development of new hydraulic model. Survey will be needed for structures within the hydraulic model limits. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Unnamed Tributary 3 to Helotes Creek near the intersection of Leslie and Braun Roads Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Braun Road and Leslie Road near Unnamed Tributary 3 to Avoided): Helotes Creek experience frequent flooding. A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic study is needed to determine appropriate drainage improvements. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $40,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Helotes Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 121 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build and /or secure shelters for Police, Fire, Emergency, Moderate Estimated Cost: and Public Works response vehicles and equipment. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Helotes Municipal Complex Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Avoid damage to vehicles allowing fleet to be response Avoided): ready. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to municipal vehicles Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Helotes — Police, Fire and Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Capital Improvements Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 122 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install window shutters on the City of Helotes Emergency High Estimated Cost: Operations Center. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Helotes Municipal Complex Building #2 Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce property damage and allow EOC to stay functional Avoided): during storm incidents. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Hurricane, Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 123 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Promoting the purchase and use of NOAA weather High Estimated Cost: radios by residents. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: All residents of the City of Helotes Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Residents would have a notification source of pending Avoided): severe weather. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Hail, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Dam Failure Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 124 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #10 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a tree trimming program that routinely clears Moderate Estimated Cost: tree limbs hanging in roadways and right-of-way. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: All roadways and right-of-way in the City of Helotes Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding and need Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the threat of tree limbs impending response Avoided): vehicles in roadways. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $30,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget, HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption pending available funding and need Incorporation into Existing Plans: Maintenance Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 125 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase NOAA "All Hazards" radios for early warning Moderate Estimated Cost: and post -event information and place in City offices and Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget buildings. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: All City of Helotes Municipal Buildings Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Alert visitors and employees to special weather related Avoided): events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail, Dam Failure, Flood, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Keep people informed, life safety issues Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 126 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public on the dangers of Tornadoes and high Moderate Estimated Cost: winds in an effort to bring awareness to the community. Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget Include mitigation measures to reduce damages and Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: protect residents from injury. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: All City of Helotes residents Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the threat to life and property due to tornado and Avoided): high winds. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24-36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Distribute and advertise FEMA "How-To" documents to educate citizens on how to protect their property from high winds. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 127 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #13 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a shaded fuel break / fuel High Estimated Cost: reduction project to prevent / reduce the spread of Potential Funding Sources: State, Texas A &M Forest Service Grant wildfires. Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: Los Reyes Subdivision Government Canyon Natural Area Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Minimize the spread of wildfire in a high hazard area. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural Systems Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: State, Texas A &M Forest Service Grant Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Shaded fuel break / fuel reduction projects as per Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Los Reyes FIREWISE program. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 128 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #14 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Continue to support and expand the communities within High Estimated Cost: the City to gain FIREWISE designation. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Areas that have been evaluated and are a high hazard for Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: wildfire Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Prevent /reduce the impact of wildfire; increase safety of Avoided): people /residents; reduce damage to property. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Private, local funds, Fire Department budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Maintain FIREWISE designation which requires mitigating actions by residents. Comply with Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 129 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #15 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Encourage homeowners to install carbon monoxide Moderate Estimated Cost: detectors / monitors / alarms in residences. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: All City of Helotes residential properties subjected to Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: possible carbon monoxide accidents /poisoning Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the threat to life and harm created by carbon Avoided): monoxide poisoning. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to residents Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local, private corporation sponsorship Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department, Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = S; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 130 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #16 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify specific at -risk populations that are High Estimated Cost: exceptionally vulnerable in the event of long -term Potential Funding Sources: Local, private corporation sponsorship power outage. Create a database to track local residents Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: / individuals affected by long term power outages. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Residents of the City of Helotes Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Assist elderly and medical assisted residents dependent Avoided): upon electricity impacted by long term power outage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Extreme Heat, Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to residents Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local, private corporation sponsorship Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 131 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #17 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify and evaluate dams upstream from the City of Moderate Estimated Cost: Helotes. Once a hazard is identified, work with Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue appropriate responsible party or agency (private land Public Works Implementation Schedule: owner, Bexar County, State) to resolve the issue. Adopt Incorporation into Existing Plans: Floodplain Management Plan land use restrictions to limit development in high risk areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: TBD with evaluations Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the threat to life and property due to dam failure. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Dam Failure Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Floodplain Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 132 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #18 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a warning system in the event Moderate Estimated Cost: of a dam failure in conjunction with flood warning Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP system. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: Los Reyes Creek Helotes Creek Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the threat to life and property down - stream. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Dam Failure Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to residents and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 133 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #19 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Education to the public of water conservation measures Low Estimated Cost: during periods of drought, using social media, City Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue newsletter, and Television Government access channel. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Areas of the City where there are private water wells Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses To help maintain aquifer water levels at a safe and Avoided): dependable level. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 134 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #20 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide alternate potable water supplies for residents Low Estimated Cost: on private water wells during drought. Provide Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, State and Federal Grants emergency hook-ups with San Antonio Water System. In Public Works Implementation Schedule: critical situations maintain trucked water and Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Contingency Plan emergency bottle water supply. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Throughout the City where residents are on private water wells Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Maintain safe and dependable water supply when water Avoided): levels drop to unsafe level on private wells. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue, HMGP, State and Federal Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Contingency Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 135 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #21 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educating citizens regarding the dangers of extreme heat Moderate Estimated Cost: and the steps they can take to protect themselves when Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue extreme heat temperatures occur, through the use of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: the Television Government Channel for distribution. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: All residents of the City of Helotes Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the threat of life and harm due to extreme heat Avoided): temperatures. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 136 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Helotes — Action #22 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Organize outreach to vulnerable population of elderly Moderate Estimated Cost: and medical assisted individuals. Create a database to Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue track these individuals locally. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: Vulnerable populations in the City of Helotes Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Assistance to individuals who may not be capable of Avoided): providing themselves relief due to extreme heat temperatures. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 137 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update, implement and enforce the City's water Low Estimated Cost: conservation and drought contingency plans. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Within 36-48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 36-48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan, Drought Contingency Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 138 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement public education campaign regarding Low Estimated Cost: drought contingency stages and effectively Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants communicate drought contingency stages and water use Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: limitation via website and /or local media. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 36 -48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 139 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a fan donation and distribution program Moderate Estimated Cost: which will allow our city to give fans to residents who Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants need a means to stay cool during the summer. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 140 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Clear debris from bridges, drains, and culverts. Upgrade High Estimated Cost: storm drain to include culvert repair and /or replacement Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Grants, Local matching funds of inadequate culverts. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: 100 block of Tower Drive 400 block of Tower Drive 100 block of South Tower Drive Blackhawk Trail @ Bison Road Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property; reduce the manpower Avoided): and time required to close low water crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce effect on existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Grants, Local matching funds Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 141 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build and /or secure shelters for Police response vehicles Low Estimated Cost: by constructing additional bays and /or covered /secure Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants parking. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Winter Storm, Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce damage to property and equipment Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 142 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop shelter /safe room sites for first responders and High Estimated Cost: critical staff. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Sites TBD within Hill Country Village Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to first responders, critical staff, and Avoided): vulnerable populations; ensure continuity of services following an event. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 143 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #7 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement and enhance an area wide Telephone Low Estimated Cost: Emergency Notification System — Reverse 911. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 144 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Prepare and advertise local emergency evacuation plan Moderate Estimated Cost: such as escape routes and educate the community on Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants such routes. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Flood, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 145 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #9 Proposed Action: Implement tree trimming program that routinely clears Reduce risk to new and existing structures and tree limbs hanging in the right -of -way or near power Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High lines. $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: Survey and remove hazardous trees from drainage Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management systems. Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available BACKGROUND INFORMATION funding Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Tornado, Winter Storm, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 146 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #10 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve early warning systems by subscribing to a Low Estimated Cost: community-wide early warning system to include a Civil Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Alert Siren. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Hail, Winter Storm, Hurricane, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 147 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public on the dangers of tornadoes and high Low Estimated Cost: winds in an effort to bring awareness to the community. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants The mitigation action will focus on how to protect life Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: and property from high wind. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to property through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 148 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #12 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove downed trees and fire fuels that increase fire High Estimated Cost: risk. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Educate the citizens of the city to monitor and clear large Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: acres of brush. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 149 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #13 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public education program on fire risks and High Estimated Cost: wildfire mitigation. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Implement a community education program regarding Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: fire dangers for identified risk areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 150 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #14 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove downed trees and fire fuels that increase fire High Estimated Cost: risk. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Develop and implement a program for routine fire Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: hydrant maintenance and upgrades, and scheduled fuels Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan reduction in Wildland Urban Interface. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 151 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hill Country Village — Action #15 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and conduct public awareness program related Moderate Estimated Cost: to winter storms, including road conditions, safety tips, Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants travel strategies, care of pipes, tree maintenance, etc. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Entire community of City of Hill Country Village Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 152 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Hollywood Par] MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement public education campaign regarding Low Estimated Cost: drought contingency stages and effectively Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants communicate drought contingency stages and water use Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: limitations via website or local media. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drought Contingency Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 153 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update, implement, and enforce the Town's water Low Estimated Cost: conservation and drought contingency plans. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Within 36-48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 36-48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drought Contingency Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 154 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and conduct public awareness program related Moderate Estimated Cost: to extreme heat, including the dangers and how to Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants protect yourself during extreme heat. Emergency Management, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 155 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a fan donation and distribution program Moderate Estimated Cost: which will allow our town to give fans to residents who Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants need a means to stay cool during the summer. Emergency Management, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 156 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Clear debris from bridges, drains and culverts, and High Estimated Cost: upgrade storm drains to include culvert repair and/or Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, Grants, local revenue replacement of inadequate culverts. Emergency Management, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: 132 & 242 Yosemite 112 & 219 El Cerrito Circle 136 & 256 Sagecrest 231 & 270 Donella Drive 105 Coolway 104 Garrapata 232 Sunway 104 Antelop Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to life and property; reduce the manpower Avoided): and time required to close crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce effect on existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, Grants, local revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 157 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Expand and conduct a Hail Storm Safety Education Low Estimated Cost: Program that includes a community campaign to reduce Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants losses during hail events. Emergency Management, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on-going repair costs due Avoided): to hail damage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce hail damage to property Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 158 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build and/or secure shelters for police and fire Low Estimated Cost: emergency response vehicles and trailers by Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants constructing additional bays and/or covered parking Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: areas for fleet vehicles at city hall. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce damage to property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Winter Storm, Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce damage to property and equipment Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 159 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement and enhance an area wide telephone Low Estimated Cost: Emergency Notification System ( "reverse 911 "). Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 160 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop shelter /safe room sites for first responders and High Estimated Cost: critical staff during extreme events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Sites TBD within Hollywood Park Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to first responders, critical staff, and Avoided): vulnerable populations; ensure continuity of services following an event. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5 Million Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Shelter Plan, Evacuation Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 161 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #10 Proposed Action: Implement a tree trimming program that routinely clears Reduce risk to new and existing structures and tree limbs hanging in right -of -way or near power lines. Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Survey and remove hazardous trees from drainage $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: systems. Lead Agency /Department Responsible: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Implementation Schedule: Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Tornado, Winter Storm, Hurricane, Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 162 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Prepare and advertise local emergency evacuation plan, Moderate Estimated Cost: such as escape routes, and educate the community on Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants such routes. Emergency Management, Fire Department, Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Flood, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Evacuation Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 163 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #12 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public on the dangers of tornadoes and high Low Estimated Cost: winds in an effort to bring awareness to the community. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants The mitigation action will focus on how to protect life Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: and property from high winds. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to property through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 164 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #13 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve early warning system by subscribing to a Low Estimated Cost: community-wide early warning system to include a Civil Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Alert Siren. Emergency Management, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Hail, Winter Storm, Hurricane, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 165 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #14 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public education program on fire risks and Low Estimated Cost: wildland fire mitigation. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Implement a community education program regarding Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: fire dangers for identified risk areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents and loss of property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures through education Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 166 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #15 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove downed trees and fire fuels that increase fire Low Estimated Cost: risk. Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Develop and implement a program for routine fire Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: hydrant maintenance and upgrades and scheduled fuels Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan reduction in the Wildland Urban Interface. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents and loss of property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural Systems Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Local Plans and Regulations Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 167 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #16 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and conduct public awareness program related Moderate Estimated Cost: to winter storms, including road conditions, safety tips, Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants travel strategies, care of pipes, tree maintenance, etc. Emergency Management, Fire Department, Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Town of Hollywood Park (entire community) Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding, Grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = S; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 168 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hollywood Park — Action #17 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the community on the dangers of low water High Estimated Cost: crossings through the installation of automatic early Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Grants, local revenue warning signs and promotion of "Turn Around, Don't Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Drown" program. Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan Identify sites where low water crossing gauges need to be installed and coordinate installation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: 134 & 242 Yosemite 112 & 219 El Cerrito Circle 136 & 256 Sagecrest 231 & 270 Donella Drive 105 Coolway 104 Garrapata 232 Sunway 103 Antelope Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to life and property; reduce the manpower Avoided): and time required to close crossings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Grants, local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 169 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Trim trees near public right-of-ways and utility lines to Moderate Estimated Cost: reduce falling limbs during severe weather events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on-going repair costs; Avoided): continue essential utility services during severe weather events; and reduce disaster response times. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: sops COMMENTS Might look at property owners' responsibility for trimming trees on property that overlook the streets. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 170 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify sites where low water crossing gauges need to High Estimated Cost: be added. Obtain and install gauges to warn drivers of Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDIVI, Local Budgets hazardous conditions. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: Swann Drainage Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents driving into high water; reduce Avoided): disaster response time during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDIVI, Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 171 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade and maintain storm drains. High BACKGROUND INFORMATION $2,500,000 Jurisdiction/Location: Swann Drainage Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents driving into high water; reduce Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): disaster response times during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500,000 Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, PDIVI, Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 172 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate community on the dangers of floods including preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): driving through high water, floodplain locations, flood Estimated Cost: $10,000 insurance protection, and mitigation measures to reduce HMGP, PDM, Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: damages. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Implementation Schedule: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents driving into high water; reduce Avoided): disaster response times during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department, Police Department, Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 173 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify and create a database for residents that require High Estimated Cost: special assistance to evacuate to safe location. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents; preserve life; reduce disaster Avoided): response times during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Flood, Hail, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal Grants, Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Evacuation Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 174 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase a generator and install permanent generator High Estimated Cost: quick connections at City Hall to establish a back-up EOC. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: 112 Bauman Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Having a secondary location, with power, in the event that Avoided): the primary ECC is out of service; ensure continuity of emergency services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought, Extreme Heat, Flood, Hail, Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Wildfire, Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $1,500,000 Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, PDIVI, Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Hall Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 175 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement program to require drought tolerant Moderate Estimated Cost: landscaping at public parks and public facilities. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City Parks and facilities Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Conserve water resources. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Taxes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Hall Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 176 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement public education campaign regarding Moderate Estimated Cost: drought contingency stages and effectively Potential Funding Sources: Taxes communicate drought contingency stages and water use City Hall, Public Works Implementation Schedule: limitations via website, local media, and utility bills. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Increase water conservation. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $80,000 Potential Funding Sources: Taxes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Hall, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 177 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #9 Proposed Action: Obtain and promote an early warning system that can N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): work in a community-wide emergency. Estimated Cost: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Potential Funding Sources: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide City Hall, Police, Fire, Emergency Management, Public Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents during severe weather events, Implementation Schedule: Avoided): with early notification to residents. funding Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Hail, Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Hurricane, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $80,000 Potential Funding Sources: Taxes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Hall, Police, Fire, Emergency Management, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 178 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Kirby — Action #10 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install two early warning sirens that can be activated High Estimated Cost: from a central location. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents during severe weather events Avoided): with early notification to residents. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Hail, Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Hurricane, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Taxes Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 179 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Kirby — Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase equipment for local CERT teams. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $20,000 Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Increase response and safety of local volunteer response Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): teams. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Extreme Heat, Flood, Hurricane, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: Taxes Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 180 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Bank stabilization along Huebner Creek between Evers High Estimated Cost: Road and Bandera Road. Install concrete retaining wall Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local to prevent erosion of the creek bank all along the route Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: throughout the city limits. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Throughout the entire course of the Huebner Creek within the city limits Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risks to residents; preserve natural area. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS We are observing rapid erosion during flood events. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 181 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update Flood Warning System Data Wise Software to High Estimated Cost: improve /expand early warning system. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Flood warning communications center Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents; update software that is at end Avoided): of life. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $8,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department EMC Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Software in use at this time is at the end of life. Upgrading system will improve and expand current warning system. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 182 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase of a weather station to add to an existing Flood High Estimated Cost: sensor station. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Huebner Creek at Evers Road sensor station Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents; provide additional weather data Avoided): during severe weather events; ability to live stream weather related information to the public via the internet. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department EMC Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: N/A COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 183 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade /Elevate bridge at 6400 Evers Road to increase High Estimated Cost: waterway capacity, prevent overtopping, reduce Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local damages, and maintain evacuation routes and Public Works Implementation Schedule: emergency access. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: 6400 Evers Road Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents; maintain traffic flow during Avoided): severe weather events; maintain the flow of waterway due to lack of culverts; maintain evacuation route during severe events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $1,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, Evacuation Plan COMMENTS Elevation of the bridge will allow the roadway to remain open during severe weather events. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 184 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase of generator and installation of permanent High Estimated Cost: hardwired connections for Fire Department. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: 6300 Elverde Road Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Maintain communication and emergency response during Avoided): severe weather events; maintain service to EOC during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hurricane, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS EOC is located within the Fire Station and needs ability to maintain full service. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 185 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Zarzamora Creek Improvement downstream from area High Estimated Cost: southwest of Wurzback through the end of the city Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local limits. Improvements will increase capacity, prevent Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: backwater flooding, and reduce flood damages. Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan Improvements to include most feasible, cost - effective improvements to accomplish mitigation such as channel widening, bank stabilization, detention ponds, or other drainage improvements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: Zarzamora Creek southwest of Wurzback through the end of the city limits Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents; management of flood waters Avoided): during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce flood risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Improvements to the creek will aid in management of flood waters. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 186 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Huebner Creek channel improvement above Evers Road High Estimated Cost: to reduce flooding in the Canterfield area. Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Improvements will increase capacity, prevent backwater Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: flooding, and reduce flood damages. Improvements to Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan include most feasible, cost-effective improvements to accomplish mitigation such as channel widening, bank stabilization, detention ponds, or other drainage improvements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Huebner Creek northeast of Evers to the city limits Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risks to residents; management of flood waters Avoided): during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce flood risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works and Others Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Improvements to the creek will aid in management of flood waters. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 187 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Leon Valley — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Create shaded fuel break in the Shadow Mist High Estimated Cost: subdivision. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: Shadow Mist subdivision Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents from wildfires. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $100,000 Potential Funding Sources: Federal, State, Local Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department and Others Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Shaded Fuel Break will reduce the risk of loss from wildfires and help control the spread of fires. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 188 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MUZ.-To W-11 I MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by publicizing water High Estimated Cost: restrictions, times, usage, and conservation methods Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets such as drought tolerant landscaping. Code Compliance BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Conservation of water during periods of drought. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Code Compliance Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Water usage, day and time restriction follows local SAWS guidelines and are posted on the City website, code enforcement vehicles and Facebook. Additional educational links can also be posted to the site. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 189 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement City program to pay for the purchase of low High Estimated Cost: flow toilets as incentive for Live Oak residents to install. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption and annually thereafter Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Water conservation through city funded program. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce drought impacts to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: General Fund budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption and annually thereafter Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Ordinance COMMENTS City sponsored program to purchase replacement low flow toilets for Live Oak residents in an effort to conserve water. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 190 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by providing safety High Estimated Cost: information on preventing heat related illness and Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets injury. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk to residents during periods of extreme Avoided): heat. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex 1 COMMENTS Provide education awareness to prevent heat related illness or injury, through Facebook, Instagram, and CTY Connect to all residents of Live Oak. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 191 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement fan drive and distribution program to provide High Estimated Cost: fans for those who do not have air conditioning or are in Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget need of assistance to protect themselves and family Fire Department Implementation Schedule: from excessive heat. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk to residents during periods of extreme Avoided): heat. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption and annually thereafter Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex O COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 192 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by providing safety High Estimated Cost: information on preventing flood related property Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets damage, injury, and death. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents through education and Avoided): preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS "Turn Around, Don't Drown" education message will be posted on City website along with CTY connect messages, Facebook, and Instagram messages during periods of heavy rain and flooding. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 193 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Collection of storm water drainage fees to support city High Estimated Cost: infrastructure related to flooding. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Avoid losses through flooding damage by maintaining Avoided): existing infrastructure and adding infrastructure as needed. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Fee based on amount of impervious covering per owner or resident Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $550,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: N/A Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Finance Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City Ordinance COMMENTS Collection of storm water drain fees collected from property owners to finance infrastructure improvement and maintenance related to flooding. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 194 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Keep citizens informed about the potential for hail High Estimated Cost: storms by providing early warning. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the danger risks to persons and property during Avoided): hail storms. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to property through early warning Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Implement notification on social media sites warning of the potential for hail. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 195 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade building codes to require hail resistant High Estimated Cost: materials for new develop to reduce damage from hail. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risks to property during hail storms. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Code Enforcement Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex K COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 196 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #9 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by providing safety High Estimated Cost: information about hurricane risks and mitigation options Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets to reduce risk of damages. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the risk to residents during hurricane force winds. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Provide education awareness to prevent personal injury or death to persons during hurricane winds. Educational information will pertain to what to do to reduce damages and where to go during hurricane winds. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 197 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt wind resistant building codes to reduce damage High Estimated Cost: from hurricane force winds. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk to residents during hurricane force winds. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Code Enforcement Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex K COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 198 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by providing safety High Estimated Cost: information related to Thunderstorm Winds as well as Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets mitigation measure to reduce damages. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the danger risks to persons and property during Avoided): thunderstorm winds. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Information regarding the maintenance of property to include trimming of trees and securing loose objects to prevent injury and protect property. The information to be posted on the city web site. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 199 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #12 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Maintenance of city owned property and right -of -ways High Estimated Cost: to clear loose debris and keep tree limbs trimmed to Potential Funding Sources: General Fund prevent injury or damage. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the danger risks to persons and property during Avoided): thunderstorm winds. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $60,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex K COMMENTS Regular maintenance to be performed by city employees of city property and right -of -ways. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 200 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #13 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak by providing risk, High Estimated Cost: mitigation and safety information about tornadoes. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk to residents during tornadoes. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Provide educational awareness to prevent personal injury or death to persons during tornadoes. Educational information will pertain to what to do to reduce damages and where to go during a tornado. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 201 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the citizens of Live Oak and make them aware High Estimated Cost: of severe winter storm dangers to persons, pets, and Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets property. Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risks to persons, pets, and property during Avoided): winter storms. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex I COMMENTS Educate the public through city sponsored social media. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 202 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live Oak — Action #15 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Monitor building codes to ensure proper construction to High Estimated Cost: reduce damage from heavy icing and snow. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risks to property during winter storms. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Code Enforcement Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex K COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 203 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Live .. Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Monitor building codes to ensure proper construction to High Estimated Cost: reduce damage from tornadoes. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Live Oak Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk to property during tornado events. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budgets Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Code Enforcement Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: City of Live Oak Emergency Management Plan Annex K COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 204 Section 16: Mitigation Actions FITMITITMEW'. MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement public education regarding drought Moderate Estimated Cost: contingency stages and effectively communicate water Potential Funding Sources: Operation Budget stages, water use limitations, and water conservation Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: techniques. Educate individuals and the community via Incorporation into Existing Plans: None website, local media, or utility billing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce water consumption during drought through Avoided): education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operation Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 205 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a drought contingency plan to High Estimated Cost: include water conservation and mandatory water Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget rationing at public buildings. Olmos Park Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Implement program to promote conservation of Avoided): landscaping to low water usage landscaping at public buildings. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 206 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate public officials, developers, contractors, High Estimated Cost: realtors, building owners, and the general public about Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget the risk of extreme heat and measures to reduce risk of Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: injury or illness. Educate via website on different types Incorporation into Existing Plans: None of heat exposure and symptoms they cause. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to citizens through education. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 207 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . , Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Analyze flood -prone properties and identify appropriate Low Estimated Cost: mitigation options for each repetitive loss structure. Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Implement mitigation options as appropriate including Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: acquisition /demolition, acquisition /relocation, or Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land Use Plan elevation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate repetitive losses through acquisition Avoided): or elevation. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce or eliminate risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land Use Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 208 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update /retrofit public facilities to include safe room Moderate Estimated Cost: locations for employees. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Provide safe areas for employees to reduce risk of injury. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 209 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement program to clean and clear Moderate Estimated Cost: current drainage system. Implement upgrades to system Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM to increase capacity and reduce flooding. Public Works and the Olmos Park Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce flood damages through increased capacity and Avoided): unobstructed flows. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Structure and Infrastructure Project Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce flood risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $250,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works and the Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan, SOP COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 210 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Prepare and advertise the local emergency evacuation High Estimated Cost: plan, escape routes, and coordination with Department Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding of Transportation. Olmos Park Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Protect residents through education and preparedness. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Evacuation plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 211 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Enforce ordinances as appropriate, related to building Moderate Estimated Cost: materials, and continue adopting current construction Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding codes to address community hazards including wind, Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: hail, flood, and wildfire. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages through improved construction. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Building Code, Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 212 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop safe rooms /shelters for first responders and High Estimated Cost: critical employees during severe weather events. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to first responders and critical employees. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 213 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve /expand early warning systems by subscribing Low Estimated Cost: to a community -wide emergency notification system. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Within 48 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents and property through early Avoided): warning. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 214 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #11 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the community on the dangers of tornadoes and High Estimated Cost: high wind events, and mitigation measures to protect Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget against damages. Olmos Park Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Educate the community on requiring proper location and Avoided): tie-downs of property as needed. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 215 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public education programs on fire risks and Low Estimated Cost: wildland fire mitigation, with the assistance of the Texas Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding Forest Service. Adopt campaign for routine fire hydrant Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: maintenance. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of wildfire damages and injuries through Avoided): education and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local Funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: SOP COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 216 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #13 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Establish and implement burning regulations. Moderate Estimated Cost: Implement a community education program regarding Potential Funding Sources: Texas Forest Service, FMA grants, Local Funding fire dangers for identified risk areas. Remove downed Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: trees and fire fuels that increase fire risk. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce wildfire risk through fuels reduction and Avoided): education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Local Plans and Regulations Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $75,000 Potential Funding Sources: Texas Forest Service, FMA grants, Local Funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Community Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 217 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Olmos Park — Action #14 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Expand and improve community resiliency by working Moderate Estimated Cost: with the citizens to reduce emergency risks from natural Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget events. Develop and conduct public awareness program Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: related to winter storms. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Olmos Park Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents through education and Avoided): awareness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Olmos Park Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 218 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Saint Hedwig MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Saint Hedwig — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement program to promote conservation of High Estimated Cost: landscaping to low water usage landscaping Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, Other grants (Xeriscaping) through public education programs at City City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: facilities and through city website. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce on-going water costs; enhance public awareness Avoided): of drought conservation. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: HIVIGP, Other grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 219 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt program to require drought tolerant landscaping High Estimated Cost: (Xeriscaping) at all city facilities and city parks. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City buildings and parks Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce on -going water costs; promote drought Avoided): conservation techniques. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce effect on new and existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Park and Master Comprehensive Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 220 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Increase awareness by educating citizens regarding the High Estimated Cost: dangers of extreme heat and the steps they can take to Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants protect themselves when extreme temperatures occur. City of Saint Hedwig Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of loss of life or injury to citizens. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 221 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Ensure vulnerable populations are adequately protected High Estimated Cost: from the impacts of extreme temperatures by creating a Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants database to track those individuals at high risk of death, City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: such as the elderly, homeless, etc. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of loss of life or injury to citizens. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 3 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 222 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Identify sites where low water crossing gauges need to High Estimated Cost: be added or upgraded and coordinate installation Potential Funding Sources: HGMP, Other grants requests. City of Saint Hedwig Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going repair costs; Avoided): enhance public awareness of danger areas during flooding. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: HGMP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 3; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 223 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a program for clearing debris from bridges, High Estimated Cost: drains and culverts. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going repair costs; Avoided): decrease flooding back up in these areas. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 224 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 225 Action Proposed Action: Drainage improvements throughout the city including: • Using minor structural projects that are smaller and more localized (e.g., floodwalls or small berms) in areas that cannot be mitigated through non - structural activities or where structural activities are not feasible due to low densities • Using bioengineered bank stabilization techniques • Inspecting bridges and identifying if any repairs or retrofits are needed • Installing, re- routing, or increasing the capacity of a storm drainage system • Increasing drainage or absorption capacities with detention and retention basins, relief drains, spillways, drain widening /dredging or re- routing, logjam and debris removal, extra culverts, bridge modification • Increasing capacity of storm water detention and retention basins • Increasing dimensions of drainage culverts in flood -prone areas • Using stream restoration to ensure adequate drainage and diversion of storm water BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going repair costs; Avoided): decrease flooding back up in these areas. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 225 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 226 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Saint Hedwig — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Contact the Insurance Institute for Business and Home High Estimated Cost: Safety (IBHS) to learn more about the most appropriate Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants type of roof covering for your geographic region. Require City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: appropriate roofing materials on all new public Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan buildings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Strengthen public structures to reduce damage caused by Avoided): hailstorms. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible =1; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 227 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Expand and conduct a Hail Storm Safety Education High Estimated Cost: Program that includes a community campaign to reduce Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants losses during hail events. City of Saint Hedwig Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce potential damages through community education Avoided): and awareness about hail damage and prevention. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Recovery Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 3; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 228 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Saint Hedwig — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Trim trees near public right -of -ways and utility lines to Moderate Estimated Cost: reduce falling limbs during severe weather events and Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants reduce power outages. City of Saint Hedwig Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents; reduce on -going repair costs; Avoided): continue essential utility services during severe weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hail, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 3; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 3; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 229 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase NOAA "All Hazards" radios for early warning High Estimated Cost: and post -event information and place in schools, Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants businesses, and critical infrastructure. City of Saint Hedwig Administration BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Jurisdiction /Location: City Hall, Fire Department, School, Post Office, feed stores, American Legion, restaurants Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Public awareness and pre -event notification could save Avoided): lives; reduce damage to property. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Extreme Heat, Flood, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 230 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase a community utility trailer for brush removal. High BACKGROUND INFORMATION $15,000 Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce brush build up and subsequently reduce fire Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Avoided): hazard. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 231 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a community education program regarding High Estimated Cost: fire dangers for identified risk areas. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Educate community and subsequently reduce fire hazard. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 232 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action #14 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Offer tree pruning education classes to reduce debris High Estimated Cost: caused by falling limbs. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damage from extreme events by clearing dead Avoided): limbs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure through education Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, Other grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City of Saint Hedwig Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 3; Administratively Possible = 3; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 233 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Oaks — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement program to trim and remove tree limbs over High Estimated Cost: curbs and easements hanging lower than 13'6" at curb / Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding right-of-way line (fallen limbs and trees obstruct Public Works Implementation Schedule: emergency response vehicles and personnel accessing Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances areas hit by severe weather) and to trim trees around power lines. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Throughout the city Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Protection of property by reducing damage to structures Avoided): and power infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 234 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Oaks — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt local ordinance for citizens to clean the right-of- High Estimated Cost: way in front of their homes. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Throughout the city Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Protection of property by reducing flooding and maintain Avoided): drainage capacity. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 235 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement program to clean ditches and deepen and High Estimated Cost: widen them to increase drainage capacity and reduce Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding flood losses. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Throughout the city Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Protection of property by reducing flood damage to Avoided): structures and infrastructure. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 236 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Oaks — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a multi-hazard public education High Estimated Cost: and awareness program utilizing web media and Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding expansion of outreach program. Provide citizens with Public Works Implementation Schedule: risk and hazard information along with safety tips, Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan mitigation techniques, and emergency planning. Include NFIP information along with availability and benefits of flood insurance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Throughout the city Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Protection of property through education and Avoided): preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Hail, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 237 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase /identify site and develop a community safe Low Estimated Cost: room to be utilized during extreme weather events Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding including tornadoes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, Emergency Management Office Implementation Schedule: extreme heat (cooling center), and winter storms Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan (heating center), and for use as evacuation center during floods, and wildfires. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: TBD within the City of Sandy Oaks Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Protection of first responders and vulnerable populations Avoided): during extreme events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to citizens and first responders Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Office Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 238 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Hardening of existing city buildings to reduce damages Low Estimated Cost: and ensure continuity of services including storm Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding shutters, roof straps, window film, generators with Emergency Management Office Implementation Schedule: permanent hook -ups, and other measures as deemed Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan necessary to protect the building envelope. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City buildings TBD Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to city buildings and ensure continuity of Avoided): services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Wildfire, Winter Storm, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce damages to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grant funding Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Office Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 239 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Sandy Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build, develop, and strengthen partnerships with Low Estimated Cost: surrounding communities and local businesses to Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grants, operating budget develop and implement hazard mitigation projects. City Council BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: Throughout the city Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduction of risks to citizens; reduction in disaster Avoided): response times. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: City tax, grants, operating budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 240 Section 16: Mitigation Actions U41 W-9 MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement public education campaign regarding Low Estimated Cost: drought contingency stages and effectively Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue communicate drought contingency stages, water use Water Department Implementation Schedule: limitations, and water conservation techniques via Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Use Plan website, local media, or utility billings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the cost for residents and water consumption. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Water Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Use Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 241 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Monitor, update, implement and enforce the City's/ Low Estimated Cost: County's water conservation and drought contingency Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue plans. Water Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Better planning for water consumption tables. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Water Department Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Water Use Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 242 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Participate in the CRS Program through the NFIP to help Moderate Estimated Cost: reduce the flood insurance rates for the citizens of Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Schertz. Public Works, Storm Water Manager BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses By entering the CRS program and working to move the city Avoided): up the scoring system, will reduce the rates that our citizens are paying for flood insurance; it will also help educate the citizens on the importance of flood management. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Estimated $60,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works, Storm Water Manager Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS The City received our first Community Assistance Visit (CAV) this past year and told we are doing great with regards to flood management. This is the first step to joining the CRS program. To fully take advantage of the program the City needs to have a full time person to manage it. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 243 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove silt from East Dietz Creek drainage channel to High Estimated Cost: bring back to original design. This channel is silted in Potential Funding Sources: Drainage Utility fund, possible FEMA Participation Grant taking up capacity of the original design to contain the Public Works Drainage Division Implementation Schedule: 100 -year flood within its banks. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: East Dietz Creek drainage channel from Dietz Road and Borgfeld Road Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses By removing the silt bringing this channel back to its Avoided): original design will reduce the risk to the homes along this channel by keeping the designed flow within its banks. This will also benefit these homeowners by being able to keep their flood insurance premiums down. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk of flooding to the homes along this channel Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $250,000 Potential Funding Sources: Drainage Utility fund, possible FEMA Participation Grant Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Drainage Division Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: City's Five Year Budget Plan, Disaster Response Plan COMMENTS This channel was last cleaned out after the 1998 flood but has since silted in due to development upstream from neighboring cities. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 244 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public on the risks associated with Hail, how High Estimated Cost: to protect themselves from injury and ways to protect Potential Funding Sources: City budget property from damages. Schertz EOC BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Outreach activities are very cost effective; they can be Avoided): used to engage the public — at large in their own protection by educating them on the risks associated with the hazards and the actions they can take to avoid those risks and also protect their property. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and I Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: City budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Schertz EOC Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: None COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 245 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update building codes to include wind and hail resistant Moderate Estimated Cost: construction materials and techniques. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Schertz Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Using hail and wind resistant materials would minimize or Avoided): eliminate the loss of property resulting from hail and wind storms; that would result in decreased insurance claims in return a decrease in insurance premiums; adds value that should offset the upfront cost. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: New /modified buildings constructed to withstand damage from hail and wind storms Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Schertz EOC Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Building Codes and Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 246 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #7 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Protect Power Lines and Infrastructure: Moderate Estimated Cost: • Inspect utility poles and power lines Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, grant • Use designed-failure mode for power line design Engineering Implementation Schedule: to allow lines to fall or fail in small sections Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances rather than as a complete system, to enable faster restoration • Install redundancies and loop feeds BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses The regular maintenance and upkeep of utilities can help Avoided): prevent wind damages to structures; alleviates risk of power outages/loss of communication to public; ensures timely repair if lines need maintenance or replacing; enable safety for public. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 — stud ies/research Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, grant Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Engineering Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 247 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Action Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Winter Storm, Hail Proposed Action: Trim trees along electrical power lines. Reduce risk to existing structures BACKGROUND INFORMATION Moderate Jurisdiction /Location: City of Schertz Potential Funding Sources: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of debris physically damaging structures/ Parks, Recreation and Community Services Avoided): people; alleviates risk of power outages; ensures safety of Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances people in nearby area (electrical shock and injury to anyone in the vicinity of an energized tree); reduces voltage fluctuations or outages; trees touching lines can burn the power lines and tree limbs and allows animals to access the lines, causing additional outages; during storms, tree limbs can break off or hit against power lines, damaging equipment and hindering repair crews. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Winter Storm, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 248 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Distribute pamphlets through neighborhood Moderate Estimated Cost: associations or insert flyers in water bills to make Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue residents aware of wildfire hazard areas and fire Schertz Fire Department Implementation Schedule: protection measures for homes and properties. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City of Schertz Rural /Urban interface Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce the risk for residents and the Fire Department. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Schertz Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS There are many outlying subdivisions that make the rural /urban interface that could be at risk. This would educate to reduce the risk to their properties and reduce the risk for the fire department. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 249 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #10 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Remove downed trees and fire fuels that increase fire Moderate Estimated Cost: risk. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz — Cibolo Creek bed Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce the risk in WUl through fuels reduction in the Avoided): creek bed in hard to reach areas. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Natural System Protection Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: State or local revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Schertz Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Wildfire Protection Plan COMMENTS Clearing the Cibolo Creek bed will reduce the risk of fire spread in the creek bed in the hard to reach areas and the urban interface. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 250 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #11 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate the public by use of city website and social Moderate Estimated Cost: media pages regarding road closures due to winter Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue weather conditions, safe driving in icy conditions, Public Works Street Division Implementation Schedule: mitigation measures to utilize at home, and safety Incorporation into Existing Plans: Department Operations Plan, Disaster Plan precautions to take during winter storms. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of damages and injuries. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures through education and preparedness Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Street Division Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Department Operations Plan, Disaster Plan COMMENTS Up-to-date road closures will be added to City website and social media pages along with education fliers to help motorists prepare for possible winter weather conditions. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 251 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Schertz — Action #12 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Ice control on roadways and bridges through the City and High Estimated Cost: TX-DOT bridges. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Schertz Ongoing whenever conditions warrant Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce traffic accidents during icy conditions. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduction in auto accidents Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Estimated $10,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: Department Budget Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Street Division Implementation Schedule: Ongoing whenever conditions warrant Incorporation into Existing Plans: Department Operations Plan, Disaster Plan COMMENTS The estimated cost above includes labor, equipment and materials. This service is provided to all necessary city roads along with supporting TX-DOT bridges within Schertz and assistance to the City of Cibolo when requested. Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 252 Section 16: Mitigation Actions 311 .o• IDE�11 Proposed Action: Mitigate flooding through an education and outreach program to inform residents, insurance agents, realtors, and others of the local flood risk, flood insurance availability and requirements, and mitigation techniques that can be employed to reduce or eliminate damages. • Implement a flood awareness program by providing FEMA /NFIP materials to mortgage lenders, real estate agents and insurance agents and place them in local libraries • Educate community on the dangers of low water crossings through the installation of warning signs and promotion of "Turn Around, Don't Drown" program • Provide how -to information to residents for mitigation measures such as installing backflow valves to prevent reverse -flow floods BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /tosses Reduce risk of damages through education and Avoided): preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 253 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 254 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Shavano Park — Action #2 Proposed Action: Implement mitigation activities to reduce flood losses throughout the city: • Create a GIS map of National Flood Insurance Program policies, claims and losses, including repetitive losses • Analyze flood-prone properties and identify appropriate mitigation options for each repetitive loss structure. Establish a priority system that ranks each repetitive loss structure in order of priority; Acquire properties and remove them from the floodplain • Implement a voluntary buyout program for repetitive flood properties BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate flood damages to repetitive loss or Avoided): high risk structures; reduce backwater flooding as well as structure and infrastructure damage due to inadequate drainage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HIVIGP, PDIVI, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 36-48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan, Drainage Plan Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 255 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 256 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement the following plans or programs- Low Estimated Cost: • Implement a Comprehensive Watershed Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, other funding sources Ordinance for new development to limit or Public Works Implementation Schedule: restrict development in high risk areas Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances • Implement a program for clearing debris from bridges, drains and culverts • Educate Floodplain/CRS Coordinators to become CFMs BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate flood damages through development Avoided): restrictions; reduce backwater flooding as well as structure and infrastructure damage due to debris and sediment building in drainage system. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 257 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Update, review, adopt and enforce ordinances, as Moderate Estimated Cost: appropriate, related to building materials (hail resistant Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, other funding sources roofing and glass) and continue adopting current Public Works Implementation Schedule: construction codes. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate hail damage through improved Avoided): building practices. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to future structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 258 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #5 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a Hail Storm Safety Education Moderate Estimated Cost: Program that includes a community campaign to reduce Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, PDM, other funding sources losses during hail events. Public Works, Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate hail damage through education and Avoided): awareness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, PDM, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: N/A COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 259 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #6 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build and /or secure shelters for Police and Fire Moderate Estimated Cost: Emergency response vehicles and trailers by Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, PDM, other funding sources constructing additional bays and covered parking areas Public Works, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: for fleet vehicles at fire stations, City Hall and the Police Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan Station to prevent damages, protect equipment, and ensure continuity of emergency services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate damages to fleet by providing Avoided): covered protection during events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Winter Storm, Extreme Heat, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing assets Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $250,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, PDM, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 260 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #7 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement a tree trimming program that routinely clears Moderate Estimated Cost: tree limbs hanging in right -of -way. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate power outages from downed trees Avoided): and limbs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinances COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 261 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #8 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase NOAA "All- Hazards" radios for early warning Moderate Estimated Cost: and post -event information and place in area schools, Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources businesses, and critical facilities. Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate risk to citizens through early warning Avoided): capabilities. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Hail, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 262 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Achieve certification by the National Weather Service as Moderate Estimated Cost: a "StormReady" community. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate risk to citizens and property through Avoided): education and preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm, Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 263 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Install lightning rods on critical facilities Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $1,000 Jurisdiction /Location: Critical facilities within Shavano Park Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate risk to equipment and critical Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Avoided): facilities during thunderstorm events; ensure continuity of emergency services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 264 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Reduce wildfire threat through planning and ordinances Moderate Estimated Cost: including: Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources • Adopt campaign for routine fire hydrant Public Works Implementation Schedule: maintenance and upgrades Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan, Local Ordinances • Work with state and local agencies to determine locations to reduce fuel on public and private lands • Develop and implement a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) • Create and implement a wildfire recovery plan, including soil erosion control, vegetative recovery, etc. • Revise Landscaping Ordinance to include vegetation more resistant to fire in landscaping design and adopt a revised "Fire Wise" landscaping ordinance BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate damages through restrictive Avoided): development and best practices. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan, Local Ordinances Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 265 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 266 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Shavano Park — Action #12 Proposed Action: Reduce wildfire threat through education and awareness programs including: • Conduct public education program on fire risks and wildland fire mitigation, with the assistance of the Texas Forest Service • Implement a community education program regarding fire dangers for identified risk areas • Distribute pamphlets through neighborhood associations or insert flyers in water bills to make residents aware of wildfire hazard areas and fire protection measures for homes and yards BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate damages through education and Avoided): preparedness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works, Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan, Local Ordinance Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 267 Section 16: Mitigation Actions Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 268 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #13 Proposed Action: Develop and implement a program to bury existing Reduce risk to existing and future structures and utilities including power, telephone, cable, and fiber Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low optic lines. $2,000,000+ BACKGROUND INFORMATION Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Implementation Schedule: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce or eliminate damages resulting from power funding Avoided): outages during extreme events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Hurricane, Tornado Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $2,000,000+ Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan, Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 269 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Shavano Park — Action #14 Proposed Action: Develop and conduct public awareness program related Reduce risk to existing and future structures and to severe storms, including road conditions, safety tips, Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low "Are You Ready" campaign, travel strategies, care of $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: pipes, tree maintenance, and others; and present Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works effective information to community members. Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available BACKGROUND INFORMATION funding Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce or eliminate damages resulting from severe Avoided): weather events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Hurricane, Tornado, Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and future structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenues, HMGP, other funding sources Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 270 Section 16: Mitigation Actions 6400711-7m MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Somerset — Action #1 Proposed Action: Somerset will work with Bexar County to educate local Protect new and existing homes and businesses through citizens on natural hazards and mitigation actions to Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate reduce risk of injury and property loss. $5,000/year BACKGROUND INFORMATION Local Budget, Homeland Security Grant, other Grant Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Improve life safety and reduce risk to the residents of Within 24 months of plan adoption Avoided): Somerset through disaster preparedness education and training. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Protect new and existing homes and businesses through disaster preparedness education and training Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000/year Potential Funding Sources: Local Budget, Homeland Security Grant, other Grant funding Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Somerset emergency manager Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of I to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 271 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Somerset — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a landscaping policy that calls Moderate Estimated Cost: for all new City-owned landscaping to be as drought Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets tolerant as possible allowing for the purpose of the Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: landscaping and that replacement landscaping of Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance existing unsuitable vegetation be replaced with drought tolerant landscaping. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Increase water conservation; decrease maintenance Avoided): costs. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Retrofit existing building as maintenance is needed, design new building with drought resistant landscaping Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 272 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Somerset — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Elevate or acquire and demolish repetitive loss High Estimated Cost: properties. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 12-36 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents and structural damages; reduce Avoided): emergency response and evacuations Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Enhanced protection of buildings and other resources; Reduce impacts to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: Bond Funds, HMGP, FMA Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 12-36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of I to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 273 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Somerset — Action #9 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Construction of covered, wind-resistant parking for first Moderate Estimated Cost: responder and emergency public works vehicles to Potential Funding Sources: Local funds, HMGP protect essential assets from hail damage, wind-driven Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: falling objects, thunderstorm winds, tornado, hurricane Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan damage, extreme heat (for vehicles with computer equipment), and other severe weather events. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: Somerset Police and Fire Stations Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to residents by improving emergency services Avoided): response; reduce on-going repair costs; continue essential utility services during severe weather events; reduce disaster response time. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Extreme Heat, Winter Storm Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local funds, HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 274 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Somerset — Action #13 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Harden Somerset critical facilities to ensure continuity of Low Estimated Cost: services during extreme events. Actions include but are Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets not limited to storm shutters, window film, surge Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: protectors, roof straps, hail and fire resistant roofing Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan material, purchase and installation of generator with I permanent hook-ups. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City Critical Facilities Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Protect critical facilities from damages and ensure Avoided): continuity of emergency services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hurricane, Tornado, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Extreme Heat, Hail Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP, PDM, local operating budgets Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Somerset City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 275 Section 16: Mitigation Actions W-07-inrew MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Street and Drainage improvements on the City's South" Moderate Estimated Cost: Central side: Elizabeth, Grandview, and Charles. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: South Central — Elizabeth, Grandview, and Charles Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce repetitive flood damages through improved Avoided): drainage. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,300,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, HMA Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Development Services, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 276 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action #2 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Planned Bond Election to address street and drainage High Estimated Cost: improvements. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: Terrell Hills— Roadways and Drainage Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce repetitive flood damages through improved Avoided): drainage; Bond election to obtain $6.9 Million in funding for drainage improvements. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $500 —staff time Potential Funding Sources: Potential Bonds Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Manager's Office Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: N/A COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 277 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Clearing of drainage areas within City annually. Moderate BACKGROUND INFORMATION $10,000 - $15,000 annually Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce flood damages through improved drainage Within 24 months of plan adoption, then annually Avoided): capacity. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 - $15,000 annually Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Development Services, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption, then annually Incorporation into Existing Plans: Maintenance and Operations COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 278 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action #4 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Continued implementation of the City's Storm Water Moderate Estimated Cost: Protection Plan (Annual Updates and Management). Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Within 24 months of plan adoption, then annually Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Estimated $20,000 to $25,000 annually. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $60,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency/Department Responsible: City Manager's Office, Fire Chief Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption, then annually Incorporation into Existing Plans: Storm Water Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 279 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Participation in study with San Antonio River Authority Moderate Estimated Cost: on North New Braunfels and Austin Highway Corridor. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: North East Corridor of the City Within 24 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Improved risk assessment. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Manager's Office Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Storm Water Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 280 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Evaluate the capacity of the underground drainage Moderate Estimated Cost: system. Implement upgrades to increase capacity where Potential Funding Sources: General Fund necessary. City Manager's Office BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages due to flooding caused by inadequate Avoided): system. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Manager's Office Implementation Schedule: Within 24 -36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Storm Water Protection Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 281 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade and maintain radio communication software Moderate /High Estimated Cost: and equipment that will be utilized during severe Potential Funding Sources: General Fund weather events. Fire Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide / Public Safety Department Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk through early warning and preparedness. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Extreme Heat, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate /High Estimated Cost: $25,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 282 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade City web -site which will include public service Moderate /High Estimated Cost: announcements for storm awareness, low water Potential Funding Sources: General Fund crossings, etc. Utilize the City Reverse 911 (Blackboard) Fire Department Implementation Schedule: for All Hazards Warning, and public awareness. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide / Public Safety Department Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk through early warning and preparedness. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Extreme Heat, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane, Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate /High Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 283 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrell Hills — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement tree trimming program twice Moderate /High Estimated Cost: annually to cover all area / corridors of the City. Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Powerline tree trimming in conjunction with CPS. Development Services, Public Works BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages caused by falling tree branches; reduce Avoided): the risk of power outages. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Local Plans and Regulations Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate /High Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Development Services, Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: N/A COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 284 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide public education on the risk factors of Heat Moderate Estimated Cost: Exposure and the ways to protect themselves. Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Provide cooling systems and structures in the impacted Public Works Implementation Schedule: areas. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk of injury to residents through education. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $30,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 285 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Provide public education regarding drought stages and Moderate Estimated Cost: effectively communicate water use limitations via Potential Funding Sources: HMGP website, social media, and utility billing. Public Works Implementation Schedule: Implement a program to promote conservation of Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan landscaping to low water usage, drought tolerant (Xeriscaping) through public education programs at City Council meetings and park meetings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce impact of drought; reduce water consumption Avoided): through education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Drought Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $50,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 286 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action #3 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Implement storm water drainage fee to assist in funding Moderate Estimated Cost: of flood mitigation infrastructure. Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Develop a flood protection program for areas prone to Public Works Implementation Schedule: flood and erosion. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risk to life and property from flooding. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $2,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 287 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt and implement a tree trimming program that Moderate Estimated Cost: routinely clears tree limbs hanging in right -of -way. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to structures and infrastructure; reduce Avoided): risk of power outages. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Tornado, Hurricane, Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 288 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade public community facilities to include Moderate Estimated Cost: designated storm shelters and develop severe weather Potential Funding Sources: HMGP actions plans. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents from severe weather. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $500,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 289 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct a Hail Storm Safety Education Program that Moderate Estimated Cost: includes a community campaign to reduce losses during Potential Funding Sources: HMGP hail events. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of damages and injuries through education. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $20,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 290 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Review and update ordinances, as appropriate, related Moderate Estimated Cost: to building materials (hail resistant roofing and glass) Potential Funding Sources: HMGP and continue adopting current construction codes. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to structures through improved building Avoided): techniques. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Hail Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 291 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop and implement a program to bury existing Moderate Estimated Cost: utilities including power, telephone, cable, and fiber Potential Funding Sources: HMGP optic lines. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages to lines; reduce risk of power outages; Avoided): ensure continuity of services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm, Hail, Thunderstorm Wind, Tornado, Hurricane, Flood, Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 292 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public awareness programs, providing Moderate Estimated Cost: information on winter storm protection, road and driver Potential Funding Sources: HMGP safety, and home protection during winter storms. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk of damages and injury to citizens through Avoided): education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Winter Storm Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = S; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 293 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt regulations for new construction to require fire - Moderate Estimated Cost: resistant roofing materials, smoke alarm systems, Potential Funding Sources: HMGP sprinkler systems, escape roads, and fuel management Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: requirements. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce wildfire damage through improved construction Avoided): practices. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 294 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action #11 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public awareness programs, regarding the Moderate Estimated Cost: wildfire dangers for identified risk areas, how to prevent Potential Funding Sources: HMGP wildfires, and mitigation measures to reduce risk. Codes and Compliance Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Jurisdiction/Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce potential for wildfires; reduce wildfire damages Avoided): through education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Wildfire Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing and new structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Codes and Compliance Department Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 295 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Universal City — Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Improve early warning system by subscribing to a Moderate Estimated Cost: community -wide emergency notification system. Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Conduct public awareness programs, regarding dangers Public Works Implementation Schedule: of tornadoes and hurricanes in an effort to bring Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance awareness to the community. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City and community wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to citizens through early warning and Avoided): education. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $85,000 Potential Funding Sources: HMGP Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Public Works Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 296 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Conduct public hearings to get input from citizens, High Estimated Cost: specifically those that are continuously being flooded Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP, PDM, other federal and state grants out of their homes. Develop and implement flood Board of Commissioners (Mayor) Implementation Schedule: mitigation plan with buy -in from impacted residents. Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land Use Plan, Drainage Plan Alternatives to consider include acquisition, elevation, drainage improvements, and /or detention ponds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce repetitive flood losses in residential Avoided): neighborhoods. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Education and Awareness Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 Potential Funding Sources: Local revenue, HMGP, PDM, other federal and state grants Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Board of Commissioners (Mayor) Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land Use Plan, Drainage Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 3; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 297 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Develop, adopt, and implement tree trimming program High Estimated Cost: to prune trees throughout the city. Powerline tree Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, CPS trimming in conjunction with CPS. Board of Commissioners BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce damages caused by falling tree branches; reduce Avoided): risk of power outages. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Local Plans and Regulations Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,000 - $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, CPS Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Board of Commissioners Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Storm Preparedness Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 298 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: . Action Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Complete flood study to identify flood risk and source. High Estimated Cost: Disseminate information to residents and encourage Potential Funding Sources: General Fund purchase of flood insurance. Board of Commissioners BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents through awareness; increase Avoided): insured losses; improve risk assessment. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $200-$300 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Board of Commissioners Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Land Use Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 299 Section 16: Mitigation Actions r, 1 WIN =-1 MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #1 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Create a functional emergency operations center (EOC) High Estimated Cost: in the City Council Chambers or Civic Center. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Jurisdiction/Location: City of Windcrest City Hall Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: 8601 Midcrown Drive Windcrest, TX 78239 City of Windcrest Civic Center 9310 Jim Seal Windcrest, TX 78239 Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Maintain continuity of operations and communications Avoided): for the City of Windcrest during critical events. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $5,000 - $8,000 Potential Funding Sources: General Funds, Grants Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12-24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 300 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #2 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Build, develop, and strengthen partnerships with Moderate Estimated Cost: surrounding communities and local businesses to Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget develop and implement hazard mitigation projects. City Council and City Staff BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 36 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduction of risk to citizens; reduction in disaster Avoided): response times. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Council and City Staff Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 4; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 301 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #3 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Assignment of City Executive to participate and identify High Estimated Cost: regional projects and to further develop capability and Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget capacity to implement hazard mitigation projects. Emergency Management Coordinator BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure continuity of services and emergency response. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: Staff Time Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Emergency Management Coordinator Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 4; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 302 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #4 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Educate Windcrest residents with disaster preparedness Moderate Estimated Cost: information, potential hazards that can affect the city, Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund and mitigation measures that can be implemented to Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: reduce damages and prevent injury. Utilize education Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan programs such as emergency "preparathon" events and distribute literature such as brochures and posters inclusive of the city of Windcrest website. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure residents are better prepared when faced with Avoided): disaster and critical events; reduce damages through education and awareness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 303 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #5 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Complete revision of city website inclusive of emergency Moderate Estimated Cost: operations planning and information for emergency Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund response, operations, and education. Office of Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 24 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure residents are better prepared when faced with Avoided): disasters and critical events; reduce damages through education and awareness. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Wildfire, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $3,000 Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 304 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #6 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Adopt requirements to strengthen code compliance and High Estimated Cost: enforcement regarding tree hazards to prevent power Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund loss and/or downed power lines. Police Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 12 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Reduce risks to residents; ensure continuity of electrical Avoided): service. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Reduce risk to existing structures and infrastructure Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $2,500 Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Police Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Local Ordinance COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 305 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #7 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Increase WMD and HazMat training for Police and Fire High Estimated Cost: Departments. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 months of plan adoption Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Help to ensure the safety, proper and updated training for Avoided): all police officers and fire fighters. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrorism and Hazardous Materials Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $10,000 Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Police and Fire Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 306 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #8 Effect on New/Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Purchase all-terrain vehicle for police and emergency Low Estimated Cost: response during critical events, hazardous situations, Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund and disasters, when roadways are poor or difficult to Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: travel. Incorporation into Existing Plans: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction/Location: City-wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost/Losses Ensure emergency response and continuity of emergency Avoided): services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Preparedness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Hurricane Effect on New/Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $15,000 Potential Funding Sources: Operating Budget, General Fund Lead Agency/Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 307 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #9 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Upgrade and revitalize the Windcrest Police Department High Estimated Cost: Communications Center. Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City of Windcrest Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: 8601 Midcrown Drive Windcrest, TX 78239 Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure emergency response and continuity of emergency Avoided): services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Preparedness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $110,000 Potential Funding Sources: Windcrest Crime Control and Prevention District Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Police Department Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 308 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #10 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Obtain and install emergency generator power with Moderate Estimated Cost: permanent hook -ups at critical facilities for continuity of Potential Funding Sources: Windcrest Crime Control and Prevention District emergency operations and other critical city services. Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Maintain and exercise city -wide early warning system Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan (reverse 911). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure emergency response and continuity of emergency Avoided): services. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Project Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Hurricane, Extreme Heat Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $100,000 per site Potential Funding Sources: Windcrest Crime Control and Prevention District Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 36 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 309 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #11 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Enhance and maintain community emergency response Low Estimated Cost: team (CERT) program to allow community members to Potential Funding Sources: General Funds, Operating Budget assist first responders in emergency situations. Office of Emergency Management BACKGROUND INFORMATION Within 48 months of plan adoption Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Ensure continuity of emergency services. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Local Plans and Regulations Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Low Estimated Cost: $1,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: General Funds, Operating Budget Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 48 months of plan adoption Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 310 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #12 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Establish surveillance program for all city water facilities High Estimated Cost: and critical infrastructure Potential Funding Sources: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risk to residents, visitors and businesses; ensure Avoided): continuity of service regarding water supply. Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Terrorism Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): High Estimated Cost: $20,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, Bexar County Water Control Improvement District #10 Lead Agency /Department Responsible: Office of Emergency Management Implementation Schedule: Within 12 -24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Response Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 4; Technically Feasible = 4; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 4; Economically Sound = 4; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 311 Section 16: Mitigation Actions MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Windcrest — Action #13 Effect on New /Existing Buildings: Proposed Action: Complete development of a business continuity program Moderate Estimated Cost: for area businesses in the City of Windcrest to educate Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, Windcrest EDC commercial and residential owners about hazard City Administration Implementation Schedule: mitigation strategies and local, state and federal Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan disasters, including NFIP education, assistance and compliance activities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Jurisdiction /Location: City -wide Risk Reduction Benefit (Current Cost /Losses Reduce risks to residents and businesses. Avoided): Type of Action (Local Plans and Regulations, Education and Awareness Structure and Infrastructure projects, Natural System Protection, or Education and Awareness) MITIGATION ACTION DETAILS Hazard(s) Addressed: Extreme Heat, Drought, Flood, Thunderstorm Wind, Hail, Winter Storm, Tornado, Hurricane Effect on New /Existing Buildings: N/A Priority (High, Moderate, Low): Moderate Estimated Cost: $1,000 per year Potential Funding Sources: General Fund, Windcrest EDC Lead Agency /Department Responsible: City Administration Implementation Schedule: Within 24 months of plan adoption pending available funding Incorporation into Existing Plans: Emergency Management Plan COMMENTS Additional Considerations: The following STAPLEE criteria were evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the extent to which this action satisfies each consideration. (1= Does Not Satisfy 3 = Moderately Satisfies 5 = Strongly Satisfies) Socially Acceptable = 5; Technically Feasible = 5; Administratively Possible = 5; Politically Acceptable = 5; Legal = 5; Economically Sound = 5; and Environmentally Sound = 5 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 312 Section 17: Plan Maintenance Plan Maintenance Procedures ................................................................................................ ..............................1 Incorporation.......................................................................................................................... ..............................1 Process of Incorporation ..................................................................................................... ..............................1 Monitoringand Evaluation ..................................................................................................... ..............................3 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... ..............................5 Evaluation........................................................................................................................... ..............................5 Updating................................................................................................................................. ..............................5 PlanAmendments ............................................................................................................... ..............................5 Five(5) Year Review and Update ........................................................................................ ..............................5 Continued Public Involvement ................................................................................................ ..............................6 Maintenance Plan The following is an explanation of how Bexar County, participating jurisdictions, and the general public will be involved in implementing, evaluating, and enhancing the Plan over time. The sustained hazard mitigation planning process consists of four main parts: Bexar County and participating jurisdictions will be responsible for further development and implementation of mitigation actions. Each action has been assigned to a specific department within the County and participating jurisdictions. The following describes the process by which Bexar County will incorporate elements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms. Process of Incorporation Once the Plan is adopted, Bexar County and participating jurisdictions will implement actions based on priority and the availability of funding. The County currently implements policies and programs to reduce loss to life and property from hazards. The mitigation actions developed for this Plan enhance this ongoing effort and will be implemented through other program mechanisms where possible. The potential funding sources listed for each identified action may be used when the jurisdiction seeks funds to implement actions. An implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned to each action as an incentive for completing each task and gauging whether actions are implemented in a timely manner. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Section 17: Plan Maintenance Bexar County and participating jurisdictions will integrate implementation of their mitigation actions with other plans and policies such as construction standards and emergency management plans, and ensure that these actions, or proposed projects, are reflected in other planning efforts. Coordinating and integrating components of other plans and policies into goals and objectives of the Plan will further maximize funding and provide possible cost - sharing of key projects, thereby reducing loss of lives and property and mitigating hazards affecting the area. Upon formal adoption of the Plan, planning team members from each participating jurisdiction will work to integrate the hazard mitigation strategies into other plans and codes as they are developed. Participating team members will conduct periodic reviews of plans and policies, once per year at a minimum, and analyze the need for amendments in light of the approved Plan. The planning team will review all comprehensive land use plans, capital improvement plans, annual budget reviews, emergency operations or management plans, transportation plans, and any building codes to guide and control development. Participating jurisdictions will ensure that capital improvement planning in the future will also contribute to the goals of this hazard mitigation Plan to reduce the long -term risk to life and property from all hazards. Within one year of formal adoption of the hazard mitigation Plan, existing planning mechanisms will be reviewed by each jurisdiction. Bexar County is committed to supporting the cities, communities, and participating jurisdictions as they implement their mitigation actions. Bexar County and participating planning team members will review and revise, as necessary, the long -range goals and objectives in strategic plan and budgets to ensure that they are consistent with this mitigation action plan. Additionally, the County will work to advance the goals of this hazard mitigation plan through its routine, ongoing, long -range planning, budgeting, and work processes. Table 17 -1 identifies types of planning mechanisms and examples of methods for incorporating the Plan into other planning efforts. The team members, listed in Table 17 -2 below, will be responsible for the review of these planning mechanisms and their incorporation of the plan, with the exception of the Floodplain Management Plans; the jurisdictions who have a Floodplain Administrator on staff will be responsible for incorporating the plan when floodplain management plans are updated or new plans are developed. Table 17 -1. Methods of Incorporation of the Plan Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Section 17: Plan Maintenance I► +► .r I , Periodic revisions of the Plan are required to ensure that goals, objectives, and mitigation actions are kept current. Revisions may be required to ensure the Plan is in compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations. This section outlines the procedures for completing Plan revisions, and review. Table 17 -2 indicates the department and title of the party responsible for Plan monitoring, updating, and review of the Plan. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Section 17: Plan Maintenance Table 17 -2. Team Members Responsible for Plan Monitoring, Updating, and Review of the Plan Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Section 17: Plan Maintenance Monitoring Designated Planning Team members are responsible for monitoring, updating, and reviewing the Plan, as shown in Table 17 -2. Individuals holding the title listed in Table 17 -2 will be responsible for monitoring the Plan on an annual basis. Plan monitoring includes reviewing and incorporating into the Plan other existing planning mechanisms that relate or support goals and objectives of the Plan; monitoring the incorporation of the Plan into future updates of other existing planning mechanisms as appropriate; reviewing mitigation actions submitted and coordinating with various County and City departments to determine if mitigation actions need to be re- evaluated or changed during the next update; evaluating the Plan as necessary; and monitoring plan maintenance to ensure that the process described is being followed, on an annual basis, throughout the planning process. The Planning Team will develop a brief report that identifies if changes to the Plan are needed, such as recommending an action for funding. A summary of meeting notes will report the particulars involved in developing an action into a project. Evaluation As part of the evaluation process, the Planning Team will assess changes in risk; determine whether the implementation of mitigation actions is on schedule; determine whether there are any implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues; and identify changes in land development or programs that affect mitigation priorities for each respective department or organization. The Planning Team will meet on an annual basis to evaluate the Plan and identify any changes needed for the next update. The annual evaluation process will help to determine if any changes are necessary during the next planning cycle. 1 M EM. •+ E+ Plan Amendments At any time, minor technical changes may be made to update the Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Material changes to mitigation actions or major changes in the overall direction of the Plan or the policies contained within it, must be subject to formal adoption by the County and participating jurisdictions. The County will review proposed amendments and vote to accept, reject, or amend the proposed change. Upon ratification, the amendment will be transmitted to TDEM. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a Plan amendment request, the County will consider the following factors: • Errors or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs during the preparation of the Plan; • New issues or needs that were not adequately addressed in the Plan; and • Changes in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the Plan was based. Five (5 ) Year Review and date The Plan will be thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Team at the end of three years from the approval date, to determine whether there have been significant changes in the planning area that necessitate changes in the types of mitigation actions proposed. Factors that may affect the content of the Plan include new development in identified hazard areas, increased exposure to hazards, disaster declarations, increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Section 17: Plan Maintenance The Plan review and update process provides the County and participating jurisdictions an opportunity to evaluate mitigation actions that have been successful, identify losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures, and address mitigation actions that may not have been successfully implemented as assigned. It is recommended that the full Executive and Advisory Planning Team (Section 2, Tables 2 -1 and 2 -2) meet to review the Plan at the end of three years because grant funds may be necessary for the development of a five - year update. Reviewing planning grant options in advance of the five -year Plan update deadline is recommended considering the timelines for grant and planning cycles can be in excess of a year. Following the Plan review, any revisions and updates deemed necessary will be summarized and implemented according to the reporting procedures and Plan amendment process outlined herein. Upon completion of the review, update, and amendment process the revised Plan will be submitted to TDEM for final review and approval in coordination with FEMA. Public input was an integral part of the preparation of this Plan and will continue to be essential for Plan updates. The Public will be directly involved in the annual review and cyclical updates. Changes or suggestions to improve or update the Plan will provide opportunities for additional public input. The public can review the Plan on Bexar County's website where officials and the public are invited to provide ongoing feedback, via email to the County's Office of Emergency Management. The Planning Team may also designate voluntary citizens from the County or willing stakeholder members from the private sector businesses that were involved in the Plan's development to provide feedback on an annual basis. It is important that stakeholders and the immediate community maintain a vested interest in preserving the functionality of the planning area as it pertains to the overall goals of the mitigation plan. The Planning team is responsible for notifying stakeholders and community members on an annual basis and maintaining the Plan. Media, including local newspaper and radio stations, will be used to notify the public of any maintenance or periodic review activities during the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation phases. Additionally, local news media will be contacted to cover information regarding Plan updates, status of grant applications, and project implementation. Local and social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter, will keep the public and stakeholders apprised of potential opportunities to fund and implement mitigation projects identified in the Plan. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 �' • 000'", 1 PlanningTeam Members ........................................................................................................ ..............................1 Stakeholders........................................................................................................................... ..............................3 ■ The Bexar County Plan 2017 was organized using a direct representative model. An Executive Planning Team from Bexar County and participating jurisdictions, shown in Table A -1, was formed to coordinate planning efforts, and request input and participation in the planning process. Table A -2 reflects the Advisory Planning Team, consisting of representatives from area organizations and departments that participated throughout the planning process. Table A -3 is comprised of stakeholders who were invited to provide Plan Update input. Public outreach efforts and meeting documentation is provided in Appendix E. Table A -1. Executive Planning Team MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Table A-2. Advisory Planning Team 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017| Page 2 un, N The following groups listed in Table A -3 represent a list of organizations invited to stakeholder meetings, public meetings and workshops throughout the planning process and include: non - profit organizations, private businesses, universities, and legislators. The public were also invited to participate via e -mail throughout the planning process. For a list of attendees at meetings, please see Appendix El. Table A -3. Stakeholders 1 Information contained in Appendix E is exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Bexar County; Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Overview................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 PublicSurvey Results .............................................................................................................. ..............................2 MY Bexar County prepared a public survey that requested public opinion on a wide range of questions relating to natural hazards. The survey was made available on the County's website, along with participating jurisdictions. This survey link was also distributed at public meetings and stakeholder events throughout the planning process. A total of 114 surveys were collected, the results of which are analyzed in Appendix B. The purpose of the survey was twofold: 1) to solicit public input during the planning process, and 2) to help the jurisdictions identify any potential actions or problem areas. The following survey results depict the percentage of responses for each answer. Similar responses have been summarized for questions that did not provide a multiple- choice answer or that required an explanation. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE 1. Please state the jurisdiction (city and community) where you reside. 2. A. Have you ever experienced or been impacted by a disaster? lill1illiZ1111111 MW Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 J. B. If "yes", please explain: 2% rm z% 3. How concerned are you about the possibility of your community being impacted by a disaster? *Extremely Concerned * Somewhat Concerned Not Concerned 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 3 4. Please select the one hazard you think is the highest threat to your neighborhood: Im 5. Please select the one hazard you think is the second highest threat to your neighborhood: Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 6. A. Are there hazards not listed above that you think is a wide -scale threat to your neighborhood? 6. B. If "Yes," please explain. Yes No Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 7. Is your home located in a floodplain? 8. Do you have flood insurance? 3M MW Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 9. If you do not have flood insurance, why not? a Not located in a floodplain Not necessary because it never floods w Not necessary because I'm elevated or otherwise protected a Never really considered it 10. A. Have you taken any actions to make your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards? M= Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 10. B. What have you done? 11. Are you interested in making your home or neighborhood more resistant to hazards? * Yes ® No Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 12.A. What io the most effective way for you to receive information about how to make your home and neighborhood more resistant to hazards? 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 O E 12. B. If other, please specify. xp '� *Ema! *App/Nextdnor m Text Message {� 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 9 13. In your opinion, what are some steps your local government could take to reduce or eliminate the risk of future hazard damages in your neighborhood? 14. Are there any other issues regarding the reduction of risk and loss associated with hazards or disasters in the community that you think are important? Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 15. A number of community -wide activities can reduce our risk from hazards. In general, these activities fall into one of the following six broad categories. Please tell us how important you think each one is for your community to consider pursuing. 90 80 70 60 50 20 30 20 10 0 Prevention Property Natural Structural Emergency Public Protection Resource Projects Services Education Protection and Awareness T Somewhat Important Prevention /Local Plans & Regulations - Administrative or regulatory actions that influence the way land is developed and buildings are built. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, open space preservation, and floodplain regulations. Property Protection - Actions that involve the modification of existing buildings to protect them from a hazard or removal from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, relocation, elevation, structural retrofits, and storm shutters. Natural Resource Protection - Actions that in addition to minimizing hazard losses also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. Examples include: floodplain protection, habitat preservation, slope stabilization, riparian buffers, and forest management. Structural Projects - Actions intended to lessen the impact of a hazard by modifying the natural progression of the hazard. Examples include dams, levees, seawalls detention / retention basins, channel modification, retaining walls, and storm sewers. Emergency Services - Actions that protect people and property during and immediately after a hazard event. Examples include warning systems, evacuation planning, emergency response training, and protection of critical facilities or systems. Public Education and Awareness - Actions to inform citizens about hazards and techniques they can use to protect themselves and their property. Examples include outreach projects, school education programs, library materials, and demonstration events. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 7��-�~ ��° Critical ~�� ~��-�� KD��,��K8U�� 8'� %'K-UUU��U U��UU��"� Overview............................................................................................................................................................... 1 CriticalFacilities .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview This Appendix is For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may be exempt from public release under FOIA. Figures C-1 through C-25 locates all critical facilities that were included in the risk assessment. Mapped facilities were provided byBexar County Planning Team members. Tables C-1 through C-24 note the critical facilities bytype. Critical F .l.t. Figure C-1. Critical Facilities in Bexar County Legend � U- Bexar Critical Facilities communications EOC 0 Evacuation Route Fire A Government/Municipal 218 M Hospital 0 IT Infrastructure Police 421 School Shelter ton 1. utility Major Highways 122, Bexar County MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Appendix C: Critical Facilities Table C -1. Critical Facilities in Bexar County Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-2. Critical Facilities in Alamo Heights Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC 0 Evacuation Route 9) Fire A Government /Municipal r.9 Hospital 0 IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N W E, 0 0.070.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Table C-2. Critical Facilities in Alamo Heights Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C -3. Critical Facilities in Balcones Heights Table C -3. Critical Facilities in Balcones Heights Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-4. Critical Facilities in Castle Hills Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route G, Fire A Government/Municipal 09 Hospital o IT Infrastructure Police Z School Shelter utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N ,V- *-E 01=1 �Miles 0 0.1 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8 Table C-4. Critical Facilities in Castle Hills Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-5. Critical Facilities in China Grove Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC Evacuation Route Fire Rift A Govern ment/M u n icipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County . . . . . . . . . . . . �Miles' 0 0.1 03 0.4 0.6 0.8 Table C-5. Critical Facilities in China Grove Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-6. Critical Facilities in Converse Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route Fire A Government /Municipal M. Hospital 0 IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County Table C-6. Critical Facilities in Converse Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure [-7. Critical Facilities /nE1mnendorf Table C-7. Critical Facilities in E|mnendorf 8exar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 8 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-8. Critical Facilities in Fair Oaks Ranch Table C-8. Critical Facilities in Fair Oaks Ranch Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Legend Critical Facilities ...... ........ . Communications EOC Evacuation Route Fire A Government /Municipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County 10 0.150.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 Table C-8. Critical Facilities in Fair Oaks Ranch Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C -9. Critical Facilities in Grey Forest Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC Evacuation Route 1 '.Fire A Govern ment /Mun icipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure CR, Police I School � Shelter Utility Water /Sewage Mayor Highways Bexar County s Miles 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Table C -9. Critical Facilities in Grey Forest Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure K-10. Critical Facilities inHe|oteo Table C-10. Critical Facilities in Helotes 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 11 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-11. Critical Facilities in Hill Country Village Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route 61 Fire A Government /Municipal I% © IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N 11 +13 NK=� �Miles 00:078.45 0.3 0.45 0:8 *Hill Country Village noted that there are no critical facilities. Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-12. Critical Facilities in Hollywood Park +13 Table C-11. Critical Facilities in Hollywood Park 8oxar County | Hazard Mitigation Plan 2O17| Page 13 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-13. Critical Facilities in Kirby Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC N 0 Evacuation Route Fire A Govern ment/M u n icipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County Miles 00.070.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Table C-12. Critical Facilities in Kirby Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Appendix C: Critical Facilities 16 Figure C-14. Critical Facilities in Leon Valley Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route 61 Fire A Govern ment/M u n icipal I% ©' IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N 11 +13 Miles 00.129.25 0.5 0.75 1 Table C-13. Critical Facilities in Leon Valley Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-15. Critical Facilities in Live Oak Legend Critical Facilities Communications * ECIC * Evacuation Route 61 Fire A Govern ment/M u n icipal I% © IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N 11 +13 Mile! 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 11 12 Table C-14. Critical Facilities in Live Oak Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Appendix C: Critical Facilities A Figure C-16. Critical Facilities in Olmos Park Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC 0 Evacuation Route Fire A Government /Municipal M. Hospital 0 IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N 0 0.0475.095 0.19 0.285 0.38 Table C-15. Critical Facilities in Olmos Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C -17. Critical Facilities in Saint Hedwig Legend ri j °Critical Facilities as Communications { EOC Evacuation Route t 1t tsi'fx rr r11 �tst��r4`4££�3 t Fire ti"tt�,z # }} i f }tc t4i �S i Y {Y'tlti �t Jib Government /Municipal ?{t ip {�� }tts {E�jk�f3t¢��{t {J�#� jZEii� £fit£ #tcti�(i � tst£ {'fi3n i{ fy 4ttt 7r r M Hospital }}��e,� { i�;z �n4iy£ f, ,7)l�,st£r %itfstt£ {fiiltrt�`! "; 414} S{;+ itt'! i�t£ s� {�t� } #ii }l�s�issr } #�li {ts3 }£t a'i �R{��r� {i i415?ll�iiti }}it r)rz; #,t��jils tf t;ii }it {tt ti ?£i�t 'f r74t£S��sii 1 `Ssr' t'°Y r", J£. {t?4t5 r7�{ sS #2£l ©. IT Infrastructure. Ak3t£iir {(s .s 3`t?y �,=r't£ {viz »£sf �r�� iit3i ;lift£��st .s�i i�ttz�sr {js {2Fitj )£ftfta$ isi��z :£s�ti ;s£stsFljt�i 7��i £4`ft' R: PelIC2 x4�t `,. {lttStttz3l {sr£1�££'S�fii# Sri{ IfS} �1' Stttt£ 3£ t3ifli% r} r} ttrfli3}{ �Ssit33li £� ;'ji ?£�.�tlfl� {zfjs,�:. SChfl4l.. t,� {' I�jr�# ftf��i�s��t�i+ ��ii�jtrs��a {'��f {tt #Sit{�tf`{ Sid #�ti��tl #14��iti�}31t�.��y1 #�tt$ s3f��tjrl trsrt�zt��fs£s,�3� {fttj£ {�i3i� yaZ .Z,rtf # tSfrljYf�2r1s,t'i ,iUr£1`?{Ii£4I { jt 4�{; tl{ ��{2 t(1t�ll4�4j Z £{r 2 }{�1i�4rt j }T t� t£fffi7 , ��t( .S i # Shelter �£ 733j j�1} ti;.,} Is+) 3irt�t�i��7}}$£ �it3�t�t;. {i£t�s3i' {i�f£tlttt47 }tits{ �,fjsh�3�� ty`7��tls�ii�r��r3t£z \� 3 {r� {t {r3iS7� f� �£ti � t.alllty £t� }�7s�`f{7`Sfrt 3z �3 ?i�5i {f£ti {' £�s��t z��i. }£S ttt` s4? i f {£s� }ii3�}rij�3t�t��s3Sr {ef�tt s�iti�i1 ?fYl {l�sr3 #t3'� }f,,,( iiiater /SSewage. „}><F;�fii3.t17iii$5,S�ii s }„�, }tl{ $citfflt<t`l it fijiks}! I{ jl{ 1}! fi} f��' it7 S�t°; zf44tstil� {7fiS {jf�C ;j }1tiiiz>t ��S;i,y . 4i�flr4tl �£ i23t�t�ttfc�ti�� ;tsl�Ftirn�k� ?t� }t3 `t{ D�Jt��.� Major Highways stead tf�l�$$$ j�fr��£yfi1i2k��tt'i Bexar County �, =� �t tf�h(jf 't�ir�£tii�tt�t��3i£titlt{t�'k ,. 0 0.4. 0.8 1.0 2.4 3.2 Table C -16. Critical Facilities in Saint Hedwig Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-18. Critical Facilities in Sandy Oaks Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC Evacuation Route Fire Table C-17. Critical Facilities in Sandy Oaks Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-19. Critical Facilities in Schertz Table C-18. Critical Facilities in Schertz Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-20. Critical Facilities in Shavano Park Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route 61 Fire A Government /Municipal I% ©' IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County N 11 +13 zm=� �Miles 0 CA 0.2 0.4 0.6 0:8 Table C-19. Critical Facilities in Shavano Park Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-21. Critical Facilities in Somerset Table C-20. Critical Facilities in Somerset Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 22 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-22. Critical Facilities in Terrell Hills Legend Critical Facilities Communications * EOC * Evacuation Route 61 Fire A Govern ment/M u n icipal I% © IT Infrastructure CR, Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County 1( J 0 0.078.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Table C-21. Critical Facilities in Terrell Hills Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 23 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-23. Critical Facilities in Universal City Table C-22. Critical Facilities in Universal City Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 24 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-24. Critical Facilities in Von Ormy Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC Evacuation Route Fire A Govern ment/M u n icipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure Police School Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County Table C-23. Critical Facilities in Von Ormy Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 25 Appendix C: Critical Facilities Figure C-25. Critical Facilities in Windcrest . .... . .... Miles .. 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8. Table C-24. Critical Facilities in Windcrest Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Legend Critical Facilities Communications EOC Evacuation Route Fire A Government /Municipal M. Hospital © IT Infrastructure C Police School 7 Shelter Utility Water/Sewage Major Highways Bexar County . .... . .... Miles .. 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8. Table C-24. Critical Facilities in Windcrest Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 26 Overview............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix D is For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 1111 "10 Table D-1 below reflects all dams that are located inBexar County. This list includes High, Significant, and Low Hazard Dams. Section 14 of the Plan Update profiles only "high" hazard type dams, as required by FEMA. Table D-1. Listing of Bexar County Dam Locations and Storage Capacities MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Appendix D: Dam Locations Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Appendix D: Dam Locations Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 WorkshopDocumentation ..................................................................................................... ..............................1 Public Meeting Documentation .............................................................................................. ..............................9 PublicNotices ........................................................................................................................ .............................12 Appendix E is For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Bexar County held a series of Planning Team workshops: a Kickoff Workshop on May 4, 2016, a Risk Assessment Workshop on August 31, 2016, and a Mitigation Workshop on November 1, 2016. At each of these workshops members of the Planning Team were informed of the planning process, expressed opinions, and volunteered information. Bexar County hosted three public meetings (following each workshop). The sign -in sheets for each workshop and public meeting are included below. For more details on the workshops and planning process, see Section 2. Figure E -1. Bexar County Kickoff Workshop, 05.04.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick -Off Meeting May 4, 2016 Name Jurisdiction and Telephone '# E -Mail Address Are You The PQC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? r tr�l c�,%d� rte- �:t l�(_ '? -t'rl —`ri t��'11 �'S{, 6` t f2..�i?✓t,6GJ ��"',- die.' v2 Lt / C C GIG U I PC- EM ®Iw Z_!0- r_c111 - 17--) tS e-'": Vki_ �SSe-t1- 7C�'?�c� ?. C e.,... . h A", toe W f R4 ✓lorz (t tG r �lcs i of k' � r � �, rL _ �e 5 rCi u� .ea U[Ir c i'4 Glu t} 5E - `1 It MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-Off Meeting May 4, 2016 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-Off Meeting May 4, 2016 Name Jurisdiction and Telephone it E-Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? ZZIL0,k- 04AAO-S A0<_ Z g\ Z_ l Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -2. Bexar County Risk Assessment Workshop, 08.31.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment. Meeting August 31, 2016 Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E -Mail Address Are You The POG For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? ,�.��r` Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 14 +��,�. ,�., ..�, ?p ;u +�� . 5..'. ��' ""f:?� 'i (.,.�r ....,� M a T o+(IG1tt CO w ry T a 4 j } :3� 5t �- .�`.,.. i. /a r, V Y'i4 }{>4. �}i xx pi +.3a�f e,t £3 ra to+ ie .l ✓�,� ✓'��*IS'(tr,ti jj r�". ;{ r(. �', ',rt.' ? <' 1 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Meeting August 31, 2016 Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E-Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? r it 61 --eY 1r ry S', PT6 !:2-10 r5S p 3q96 4.-,,941,11r,!.116?y4 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Meeting August 31, 201E Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E -Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? tl� F Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Meeting August 31, 2016 Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E -Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? 1 VV) Er _,. °r ?44 i �t -x� C: iS tLtYkuC 'r .4. t_ rtis s ; .•.,� 3 UJt•'° i rr3- .;i..td �.ii.lrr..4r.t��l. Hazard Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Meeting August 31, 201E Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E -Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) Organization Your Jurisdiction? tl� F Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 6 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -3. Bexar County Mitigation Actions Workshop, 11.1.16 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 7 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy Workshop November 1, 2616 - cs lur I Cvm ,r,-b wtkt_� f, `s ti kern, Name Jurisdiction and Telephone E- Mail ;Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) organization Your Jurisdiction? •' J.I tin£` A .s .... ., .: 1�! lf�t �alaL sa r0 &. "d Ao 116 o V7 att t l l 11 �,i +^1 e4 Ttit r C✓S i�d=k .l.,t(1.G1i4 910-G13 � ...' U:V' c( 1I,'," u ,'fLr �q I'."".. s-�°-� -��', C,(—,1 q��_ ��7.,.s�. P° • L°�Ci"`.L —GSO �L.�Il il� 5 `9 E�{14XCL'tk�P: +1dY1M1n5 CJ* Fq..- �''1'J Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation Strategy Workshop November 1, 2016 Uvwq Xx j Cvfa'nncn Name Jurisdiction and Telephone # E -Mail Address Are You The POC For (Please Print) organization Your Jurisdiction? Ti;r 2 lCw Ash- .tB Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 lf�t �alaL sa r0 &. "d Ao 116 o V7 att t l l 11 �,i +^1 e4 Ttit r C✓S i�d=k .l.,t(1.G1i4 910-G13 � ...' U:V' c( 1I,'," u ,'fLr �q I'."".. s-�°-� -��', C,(—,1 q��_ ��7.,.s�. P° • L°�Ci"`.L —GSO �L.�Il il� 5 `9 E�{14XCL'tk�P: +1dY1M1n5 CJ* Fq..- �''1'J Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 8 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation I' - • 1 • III I I - As discussed in Section 2, a series of three public meetings were held in conjunction with each of the Bexar County workshops. Survey respondents were asked if they wanted to be informed about public meetings, and these respondents were invited to the public meetings. Documentation in the form of sign -in sheets for each of the meetings follows. Figure E -4. Bexar County Public Kickoff Workshop Public Meeting, 05.04.16 Hazard Mitigation plan Public Meeting. May 4, 2016 Name Address Telephone N E Mall. Address (Please Print) to r r Jv=,c�,�Fn ��, ,v /✓ ,-,�t9C� .�"% r�L1 V' L�d`�' �� 'fa!I. _��r ..stub ,�7 =.r, ?? t �'14t iUC,�u'SA i-�. rl�vf/ t� 1 t4_8 ilG�l C,L`GM:U "9' - IZc ? 4tto.r�. X312 sL55'z5 -1 �t3r{ ��t?: it�t� ,AO'- 9lt�.r`St.�L;.c�:ty -.r Hazard Mitigation Plan Public. Meeting May n;. 2016 Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 9 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E-S. Bexar County Public Risk Assessment Workshop Public Meeting, 08.31.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting August 31, 2016 Name Address Telephone # E-Mail Address F (Please Print) i- --A '�-' - '� -i� 'I EI, < � L.'j q< C' 1-14 01 e, (4 Q "Ir -T" 7,YM 0-7 7 3 2 Z —4– F34i IDEVA T�20 Z f C, v'hl 14 ?1 J�7 Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 10 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E-6. Bexar County Mitigation Actions Workshop Public Meeting, 11.1.16 Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting November 1, 2016 -- Name f ti is Address h O Telephone # T—F-M Address (Please Print) f 7-60 ash r -TY, -togs 16 ptocvLte TK 40 asts2 B,cec .4cx — 3vi -- — ------------ Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 11 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation FM "I III #T Public notices to announce Bexar County's participation in the Plan Update development process were posted on various websites, outside of community offices, and Facebook (including participating jurisdictions within the County) as shown in Figures E -7 through E -17. Additionally, as seen in Figures E -14 through E -17, the County and participating jurisdictions invited the public to participate in the survey. Figure E -7. Public Notice, Bexar County Web Page, 05.04.16 Public Meeting CPD— ,Cauntc,TX- 0ffpci0 a _o-s 4 4.P" §5 20a Boxer County ,announces a Pubtic Meeting to Discuss the aexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan PUBLIC NOTICE EEXAR COUNTY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC iNEE ING TO 01SCUSS THE EEXPi2 COUNT Y HAZARD lt6tiIGATIrtON PLAN A public meeting vat be field on blay L. 2016 at TOO p m.:at the Bexar County Els.c tans Dericiantart Muili�Pupcose Trluurnq Room, 9103 South Frio Sate Antonia, Texas 73207 to discuss the crealaon c; a Oscar Courtly Hazard plingaton Ran, The purpose of She public meetrrg is to provide a project aver cew from H2O Partners,: luc., consultant to The project. and 5QId : nf©m.aftc r from citizens,: Public input aoli help the project learn to nte? trfy and analyze pazemarri Hazards affecting residents crud wornrnend prsaaba actions to reduce their onpact:.: Hazards tan rribuda floods tornadese, rrVtlf rtes, �,r^�ntes stornis and,.. Order, malordisasters Each year, mr1krans offederat hazard irrigation jImnls dollars ace made available to eligible app] cano; °aaprograms such as the Hazard Ittitgavotu Oran. Program (HMI and the Pre D aaacer Mitigation Pmpcam (PDMt} WIch an apixwed Hazard lx bIrchlicur Plan.:. Behan Cconty and Ire Crtaes perfaipaling in Eerat Cwrid,'.s Hazard F, rogation Plan will be elplible for these t, Apeltive g€arld lands: Seieet Language + :. If jcu cannot attend the puhto meeting, mforr atsnn about Mus planning process and a pubkc partrcipatiffJ11JEMIonred Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 12 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -8. Public Notice, Bexar County Emergency Management Web Page, 05.04.16 Public Meeting Sice €~ .,.t_.C.. Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Bexar County Announces a Public Vbekcame in §he Bexar Gnunry 4iftice of Emergency d�lanag.emecnt (BCf}Eivl} we6sade Th. ®C4`9EB = =i. Meeting to Discuss the Bexar County coo dinates the Bexar Cour.4y erhargeni;y wrianagemerrl efforts m arder to prepare, prevent, plan respond and rac over from ill- hazard aaveots The ECOEIJ is active in tone ci)rlel {nrTy in a a36e(y Of Ways' Hazard Mitigation Plan A public rr,ranwg,,vii be herd ion Wy d 2016 in . Respand to entergenci d ^salters w df rn Bexar, County, and ft €eyfot ... 7 0 a m at the Bexar Caunty Electmns = Develop: maintain, and coordinate Emergency Management plans. Department Wti,Pwisose Traimriq Room, 1103 Sca.t19*Fria San Antonia Texas 72207 to discuss = Conductraftend as hazards training and exercises, ereaffir4n at a Bexar county Hazard Frtatigattarr • Morsta':arrrerliencyldlsaster rrcfdects: and manage the Emergency Operators Center. Plan, Q Gn-ozene command: cont of and co municatwcn for M=el . Pahrin; ale in the 9ncident managernarrl Team, - Coordinate public infor raahon mid the dtsser matter of warnings: Strengthen cxaesmun ly education and prepa-edr:esz through Volunteer management and coteron3tone9 Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters fVOAa3 }.. = Coordrnate relief and recovery operations. c SellestLanguage Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 13 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -9. Public Notice, Bexar County Offices (Photo showing posting location and address), 05.04.16 Public Meeting Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 14 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 15 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -10. Public Notice, Bexar County Web Page, 08.31.16 Public Meeting Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 16 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -11. Public Notice, Bexar County Public Records, 08.31.16 Public Meeting July 8, 2016 C IN 4111111AVIFIVI11111i�119 P12-23362-1 PUBLIC NOTICE BEXAR COUNTY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE BEXAR COUNTY HAZARD_ MITIGATION PLAN A public meeting will be held on August 31, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Sari Antonio and Bexar County Emergency Operations Center, Policy Roam, 8130 Inner Circle Drive, San Antonia, Texas 78235, to discuss the creation of a Baxar County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide a project overview from H2O Partners, Inc., consultant to the project, and solicit information from citizens. Public input will help the project team to identify and analyze potential hazards and risks affecting residents and recommend possible actions to reduce their impact Hazards can include floods tornadoes, wildfires, winter storms; and other major disasters. Each year, millions of federal hazard mitigation grants dollars are made available to eligible applicants via programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). With an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan, Sexar County and the Cities participating in Bexar County's Hazard Mitigation Plan will be eligible for these competitive grant funds. If you cannot attend the public meeting, information about the planning process and a public participation survey can be obtained by contacting Heather Ferrara, H20' Partners, Inc. at neathera h2opartnersusa.com. Date Time of Posting: BEXAR COUNTY ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT This hearing site is accessible to functional needs individuals as follows: Entrance to the San Antonio and Bexar County Emergency Operations Center is accessible through the main entrance on the front of the building. Go 27 6Z P... 0 00 0aY0S /2016 3 21 M a Pa ff t F.i led 8 Reca�ded in &hsiexa A Publx� Recaeds f 1EXAR COUNTY GERRRD C. RICYCHOFF. COUNTY CLERK Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 17 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -12. Public Notice, Bexar County Web Page, 11.01.16 Public Meeting Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 18 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E-13. Public Notice, Bexar County Public Records, 11.01.16 Public Meeting October 5, 2016 111 P12-23638-1 PUBLIC NOTICE BEXAR COUNTY ANNOUNCES A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE BEXAR COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN November 1, 2016 A public meeting will be held an November 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the San Antonio and Bexar County Emergency Operations Center, Media Room, 8130 Inner Circle Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78235, to discuss the creation of a Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the public meeting is to provide a project overview from H2O Partners, Inc., consultant to the project, and solicit information from citizens. Public input will help the project team to identify and analyze potential hazards and risks affecting residents and recommend possible actions to reduce their impact. Hazards can include floods, tornadoes, wildfires, winter storms, and other major disasters. Each year, millions of federal hazard mitigation grants dollars are made available to eligible applicants via programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Pro-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)_ With an approved Hazard Mitigation Plan, Bexar County and the Cities participating in Bexar County's Hazard Mitigation Plan will be eligible for these competitive grant funds. If you cannot attend the public meeting, information about the planning process and a public participation survey can be obtained by contacting Heather Ferrara, H2O Partners, Inc, by email at heather -5-h2opartnersusacom, Date Time of Posting: � a 2, �_ Fes' BEXAR COUNTY ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT This hearing site is accessible to functional needs individuals as follows: Entrance to the San Antonio and Bexar County Emergency Operations Center is accessible through the main entrance on the front of the building. U..# 23533 F:5WWQ 1010512016 3:2 M # P.q.. I Filed 8 Recorded in the Official Public Records of SEXAR COUNTY GERARD C_ R I CKHOFF COUNTY CLERK Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 19 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -14. Public Notice, City of Terrell Hills Web Page, Survey Invitation r i1 n li cflm _ rbi NEWS N " {s MEWS Bexar County Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Survey: The City of Terrell Hills, along with several othei area municipalities, is partnering with Bexar County to develop d County wide Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. This plan is designed to identify areas inside of Bexar County that are susceptible to damage from a:.natural disaster and to find ways to Help: reduce the negative impacts natural disasters have an qnr connmunhies. Pubhr_ and stakeholder participation is integral to mitigation planning Terrell Hills residents and business owners are invited to complete tare following short survey to help provide guidance for- the pla €v Bearar Catinty. H1MAP Surrvey 21316: Figure E -15. Public Notice, Town of Hollywood Park Web Page, Survey Invitation The ol €'vovood Pa& Foie nlar,hars Qfln, Fea CosmtyC ceo €Emergency M-a .genent and otheri ncorpwa _edchic,lu- SexorCountyhave pai'neredtogeth-to createa tau r', o, de Haza d Midgakam Action Nen r`Pian co 'HMAP j Tre puncone of,6is. plan ;s to rdeneif; natural and man-made hazards that affect our a°ea, Cut goal =ltd mtnWze or etlonnate the lrangtern nskto hw— tlfe aid propety from,cn€wrhazard_thraurlit effetie mpigatian. nafrcipatlon bythe cifizen ©`Ndtlix- odPa-kis iiiteg °aE to n itigaz9on planning Thereto er I air mv,tinC you to taxe part n a shortsutvey to assist one it the Idettibsatiory of hazards that your feed exist in su° communlry. Please click the sink below to complete oho survey. het7is ,w°��,wsvrvenrron _yCOrsr, r, nexa cac+3tyHhlAf' Thank You, . Chief John Sutrlco Fire Chief / Emergency Management FIRE DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 20 Appendix E: Meeting Documentation Figure E -16. Public Notice, City of Leon Valley Facebook Page, Survey Invitation he— C— tvmtgata X aexar croetnn rcni7gatFOr selnney Q'9. Tcp Lalecr le'lis, r^hrtH, 'vice- Shop "=ag- R ... s GrOI Leon Valley Fire Depannoent ad, Urn Ply, c , my P €ease help by clicking fhe fink, pe[oaw and Caking a punk st7lveY The City of eon Valle, is par:nenng yvnh Sexar County to develop a Hazard TITirganon Acilon Glan (Hil That tall address naWraf and man --node hazards thata`€ec-. our area. The Federa €_Inegenct Management Agency denies Mitigation as actions taken it reduce or eliminate dng- term rtsK to people and pl "opern `loft hazards and their erects. The goal of the -HA- Is to minimize or e,m na e the Pong -term rl_._ ;zee ietare Public Surrey for Bexar Count. Lazard :mitigation Action Plan _ 'fl h u �w PCworeo by L —JIA4 F , m. C t , n oni, wer navy r,t Srne,1A.,o sr .p.n-,_1mea rceer..nrplatea — z �. cur ya g >nar= r n Shops P cotes, .? 6k Like Pik'. w'~ Figure E -17. Public Notice, City of Helotes Facebook Page, Survey Invitation •t: 15 B r X ry i .Ts t ece6aok coin -e h . _ 3exar COUn'p mltlgatrou survey C,'S - Top Latest perpfe choirs Adeos Shop pones Fiaces f;rout ,eT rk, tr,o olTa's Shop Heloazs r7 ai l PabE ri 6 °x The City W Hefoees has joined Bexar County in developing a Hazard rAingahon Action Plan that will address natural and mon -made hazards Mad all our area Helales residents and business owners are In✓red to complete a Hazard Mitigation: Survey . to assist vrO this project_ To read the run story and access the survey, visit the City s ,ebsre. Bexar Counh- Hazard Mitigation -he ctar -ed.e has caned 6eear:Bnontym.. —,bv p nv s H—ol Kl daatun Acton Plat [ atyv it aJHre �t ra ana,n, r H.._hizirds Pit "o n„ y' Ct I'm r stru" . ... ... Bexar County j Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 21 Overview................................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Community Capability Assessments ....................................................................................... ..............................2 A Community Capability Assessment is an integral component of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Process. It is an invaluable tool in assessing a community's existing planning and regulatory capabilities to support implementation of mitigation strategy objectives. Beginning on Page 2, a completed Capability Assessment Checklist provides information on existing policies, plans, and regulations in place for Planning Team members at the local level or that may be provided by the County on an as- needed basis. Participation is denoted with an 'Y' on the Checklist. MITIGATING RISK FOR A SAFE, SECURE, AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Appendix F: Capability Assessment Community Capability Assessments Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 2 Appendix F: Capability Assessment Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 3 Appendix F: Capability Assessment Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 4 Appendix F: Capability Assessment Bexar County I Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 1 Page 5 Agenda No. 9 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Fire Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -69 — A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas authorizing the City Manager to sign an Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with Bexar County. C• � 1 The Schertz Fire Department is charged with the responsibility of regional fire suppression, protection and prevention. The Fire Department responds to fire and emergency calls in portions of unincorporated Bexar County. This area is generally within our ETJ east of 1518 to the county line, and north of Interstate 10 to the Schertz City limits. This is an annual agreement between Bexar County and the City of Schertz and has no significant changes from previous years. Community Benefit Providing Fire Protection Services to these areas outside the City typically does not adversely impact our responses within the City. We would respond in that area for structure fires with or without the agreement due to our area -wide mutual aid agreement. By maintaining this agreement with Bexar County, we are able to receive some financial assistance along with providing services in an area that would otherwise be without fire service. FISCAL IMPACT The City received revenue from Bexar County in the amount of $1,756.48 per month per this agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution 17 -R -69 to authorize the City Manager to sign the Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services with Bexar County. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17 -R -69 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -69 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITH THE COUNTY OF BEXAR, TEXAS, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Schertz Fire Rescue Department provides fire service to the citizens of Schertz and is a participant in multiple mutual aid agreements among other jurisdictions to provide and receive fire service; and WHEREAS, the County of Bexar has need of Ere services in unincorporated Bexar County and historically contracts with the nearest fire departments to provide that service; and WHEREAS, it is of benefit to both parties and to the residents in those areas, to enter into this Agreement to efficiently provide that service to the are designated in Exhibit A; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCILL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into the Interlocal Agreement to provide fire service to areas within Bexar County as set forth in 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 22"d day of August, 2017. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A Attached 0 STATE OF TEXAS § INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR § FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES This Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF BEXAR, a political subdivision of the State of Texas ( "COUNTY "), and the CITY OF SCHERTZ, a municipal corporation situated in Bexar County, Texas ( "CITY "). Authority for this Agreement is granted pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code Section §791.001 et seq. and the Texas Local Government Code Section 352.001 et seq. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Commissioners Court of COUNTY is authorized to provide fire protection and firefighting services to citizens of COUNTY residing outside the city limits of any incorporated city within COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the Commissioners Court desires to provide such fire protection and firefighting services to citizens of COUNTY residing outside the city limits of CITY, in an area more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes (the "designated area "); and WHEREAS, All payments for expenses incurred as a result of the performance of this Agreement must be made only from current revenues legally available to the respective Parties; and WHEREAS, CITY represents that it can adequately provide fire protection and firefighting services on behalf of COUNTY, utilizing CITY's fire department ( "CITY "), according to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements stated herein, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I PURPOSE 1.01 The purpose of this Agreement is to secure the services of CITY to provide fire protection and emergency services to the designated area. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS 2.01 For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) FIRE DEPARTMENT - a firefighting unit consisting of not less than six active firefighters with a minimum of two training sessions each month, each a minimum of two hours long and with a majority of all active firefighters participating at each meeting. (b) FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT - vehicles and protective clothing for use in fire suppression. This includes fire suppression vehicles and all related materials normally carried on these vehicles such as hoses, wrenches, generators, exhaust fans, nozzles, ladders, rescue saws, pneumatic and hydraulic tools, and self - contained breathing apparatus. Protective clothing includes boots, helmets, gloves, turn -outs (jacket and pants), hazardous materials suits and similar gear. (c) TRAINING PROGRAM - a program consisting of a minimum of four hours each month, utilizing criteria set forth by in the State Firemen's and Fire Marshal's Association for volunteer firefighters or the Texas Commission on Fire Protection Standards and Education for paid firefighters. Documentation of this training is to be retained by CITY subject to inspection by COUNTY, through its Fire Marshal at any time during normal business hours. (d) ACTIVE FIREFIGHTER - a firefighter who attends a minimum of two training sessions each month, each a minimum of two hours long. (e) PAID FIREFIGHTER - a person, at least eighteen years of age, who meets the criteria set forth by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection Standards and Education. 2 (f) VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER - a person, at least eighteen years of age, who meets the equivalency of Basic Certification as a Volunteer Firefighter within three years after joining DEPARTMENT. (g) FIRE ALARM - the fire dispatch service utilized by COUNTY. (h) INCIDENT COMMANDER (IC) - The individual responsible for all major event activities, including the development of strategies and tactics and the ordering and the release of resources. The IC has overall authority and responsibility for conducting major event operations and is responsible for the management of all operations at the event site. (i) MAJOR EVENT- An occurrence or incident, natural or human - caused, which might impact a significant area or population, which requires an emergency response to protect life or property. Major events can, for example, include disasters, emergencies, terrorist attacks, terrorist threats, wildland and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills, nuclear accidents, aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war - related disasters, public health, use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an emergency response. ARTICLE III II Y° 3.01 The term of this Agreement is for one year beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2017. 3.02 This Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause, upon sixty days written notice delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or in person, with a written receipt acknowledging delivery, to the other party. 3 ARTICLE IV OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 4.01 CITY agrees to perform the following services in accordance with specifications and standards established by the State Board of Insurance and the office of the State Fire Marshal of Texas, for the benefit of those persons residing in the designated area: (a) Assist the Bexar County Fire Marshal in fire prevention programs; (b) Establish a continuing training program for CITY personnel; (c) Monitor the Fire Alarm or alert system and radio system on a 24 -hour basis; (d) Respond to emergencies and fight fires within the designated area or in support of mutual aid agreements made in accordance with this Agreement; (e) Purchase and install one mobile radio on COUNTY Fire Alarm frequency (154.250) in each firefighting vehicle and provide other receiving equipment as CITY deems necessary; (f) Follow all current radio procedures specified by COUNTY; and (g) Notify Fire Alarm via radio when responding to calls in the designated area even if not dispatched by COUNTY. 4.02 It is expressly agreed between the parties that, in the event of conflicting fire alarms arising within the corporate limits of CITY and the unincorporated designated area, the alarm within the corporate limits shall have priority. Nevertheless, CITY shall use its best efforts to respond or to request assistance in responding to the alarm in the designated area. 4.03 CITY shall maintain, during the term of this Agreement, at least one -half of its active firefighters at a level of competency that meets the equivalency of the certification requirements of a basic firefighter as set forth by the State Firemen's and Fire Marshal's Association. All firefighters must meet the equivalency of the certification requirements herein stated within three years of joining CITY as a firefighter. Failure to meet these 4 standards is a material breach of this Agreement and shall entitle COUNTY to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to CITY. 4.04 CITY shall complete criminal background checks of all current firefighters or EMS personnel with the assistance and cooperation of the Bexar County Fire Marshal's Office and establish procedures for excluding current or potential firefighters with unacceptable criminal convictions. The COUNTY requires that CITY not allow any personnel with a conviction for a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude on its department unless that person is otherwise certified by either the Texas Commission on Fire Protection or the Texas Department of State Health Services. 4.05 CITY shall create an inventory listing all of CITY's assets used in the provision of emergency services to include, at a minimum, the designation, quantity, model or serial number, condition and location of such assets within sixty (60) days from the date of this Agreement is executed and provide a copy to COUNTY. 4.06 CITY shall provide monthly status reports in addition to any other monthly reports required by this Agreement, to the Bexar County Fire Marshal to include any personnel incidents, staff certification progress, and the scope and purpose of any training conducted. 4.07 CITY shall establish training programs for all firefighters, probationary firefighters, reserve firefighters and fire officers pursuant to the curricula established by the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association. 4.08 CITY is responsible for maintaining all required National Incident Management System (NIMS) training which utilizes standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures, uniform personnel qualifications standards, uniform standards of planning, training, and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters. ARTICLE V OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY 5.01 COUNTY agrees to pay the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty -Six and 48/100 Dollars ($1,756.48) per month to CITY to be used solely for the following purposes: (a) Purchase or leasing of firefighting equipment; 9 (b) Maintenance and operation of firefighting equipment; and (c) Rental, construction, or purchase of firefighting facilities or buildings. 5.02 COUNTY agrees to provide CITY with dispatch services for the designated area, at no cost to CITY, for the duration of this Agreement. It is understood that the termination of this Agreement terminates the fire dispatch service provided by COUNTY unless CITY enters into a dispatch service agreement with COUNTY. ARTICLE VI BEXAR COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL SERVICES 6.01 COUNTY, through its Fire Marshal, further agrees to furnish, during the term of this Agreement, the following services upon request: (a) Assist CITY in determining the cause of any structural or suspicious fires; and (b) Assist in resolving questions of territorial jurisdiction between fire departments. In such cases, the decision of the Bexar County Fire Marshal shall be final. 6.02 The County Fire Marshal, or the County Fire Marshal's designee, shall perform as the incident commander in a major event in the unincorporated areas. ARTICLE VII EQUIPMENT 7.01 CITY shall provide all necessary equipment and transportation in providing services specified in this Agreement. 7.02 CITY agrees to remain responsible for registration, licensing, inspection, repairs, and maintenance of all equipment, and for any and all damages resulting from the use of any of its equipment, including motor vehicles. D 7.03 COUNTY shall not accrue any equity or ownership interest in any equipment provided by CITY. ARTICLE VIII LIABILITY OF THE PARTIES 8.01 It is agreed that COUNTY shall not be liable or responsible to CITY in damages or any money demands for any loss or failure of the central dispatch communications equipment or because of neglect or failure on the part of the central dispatch service provider. 8.02 CITY and COUNTY agree that there is no requirement upon COUNTY to provide fire protection. CITY, therefore, accepts no responsibility to the residents of the designated area. ARTICLE IX INSURANCE 9.01 CITY shall provide and maintain automobile liability insurance for all its CITY vehicles having at least the following policy limits: $250,000 Bodily Injury Per Person $500,000 Bodily Injury Per Occurrence $100,000 Property Damage Per Occurrence 9.02 CITY agrees that, with respect to the above required insurance, CITY shall: (a) Maintain liability insurance through an approved insurance company licensed to do business in Texas. (b) Name COUNTY as an additional insured such that any such policy shall apply fully to any "additional insured," as if COUNTY were a "named insured," or furnish COUNTY with documentation evidencing, to COUNTY's satisfaction, that such policy does not permit COUNTY to be named as an additional insured thereunder. 7 (c) Provide to COUNTY certificates of insurance, binders, or other proof of insurance, acceptable to COUNTY in its sole discretion, evidencing all insurance coverage required by this Article. Maintenance of a current certificate of insurance on file with the Bexar County Auditor's Office shall be a condition precedent to payment by COUNTY under this Agreement. (d) Provide thirty days advance notice in writing to COUNTY of cancellation or material change of any and all insurance maintained pursuant to this Article. ARTICLE X FORCE MAJEURE 10.01 Neither COUNTY nor CITY shall be required to perform a term, condition, or covenant in this Agreement so long as such performance is delayed or prevented by force majeure, which shall mean acts of God, strikes, lockout, material or labor restrictions by any governmental authority, civil riot, floods, and any other cause not reasonably within the control of COUNTY or CITY and which by the exercise of due diligence CITY or COUNTY is unable, wholly or in part, to prevent or overcome. ARTICLE XI RVPnRTC 11.01 CITY shall maintain accurate run reports of each incident to which it responds. Reports shall be retained by CITY subject to inspection by COUNTY, through its Fire Marshal, at any time during normal business hours. ARTICLE XII INSPECTION OF BOOKS /FINANCIAL RECORDS 12.01 CITY agrees that the Bexar County Auditor shall have access for inspections and reviews any financial records, reports, or data related to the funds provided herein and the County Auditor may conduct such inspections and reviews at any reasonable time. 0 ARTICLE XIII EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS 13.01 No person shall illegally be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the program which is the subject of this Agreement on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability or national origin. ARTICLE XIV AMENDMENT 14.01 No amendment, modification, or alteration to this Agreement shall be binding unless the same be in writing, dated subsequent to the date hereof and duly executed by the parties hereto. ARTICLE XV NOTICES 15.01 All notices by the parties shall be deemed given when either delivered in person or deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party at the following address: If to COUNTY: County Judge Paul Elizondo Tower 101 W. Nueva, Suite 1000 San Antonio, Texas 78205 With a copy to: County Fire Marshal 622 Dolorosa Street San Antonio, Texas 78207 -4535 And: County Auditor Paul Elizondo Tower 101 W. Nueva, #800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 If to CITY: City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 -1634 ARTICLE XVI MUTUAL AID 16.01 CITY agrees to use its best efforts to enter into a mutual aid agreement with other fire departments that have contracted with Bexar County to provide fire protection services. ARTICLE XVII COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS 17.01 In providing all services pursuant to this Agreement, CITY shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to, or regulating the provision of, such services, including those now in effect and hereafter adopted. Any violation of said statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, and shall entitle COUNTY to terminate this Agreement immediately upon delivery of written notice of termination to CITY. ARTICLE XVIII PARTIES BOUND 18.01 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns where permitted by this Agreement. ARTICLE XIX TEXAS LAW TO APPLY 19.01 This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable solely in Bexar County, Texas. ARTICLE XX LEGAL CONSTRUCTION 20.01 In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, sirs, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. ARTICLE XXI PRIOR AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED 21.01 This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed in duplicate originals this day of , A.D., 2017. COUNTY OF BEXAR NELSON W. WOLFF County Judge ATTEST: loot's GERARD C. RICKHOFF County Clerk 11 CITY OF SCHERTZ BY: JOHN C. KESSEL City Manager ATTEST: BY: BRENDA DENNIS City Secretary APPROVED: BY: FIRE CHIEF APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: KATHERINE RAMOS Assistant Criminal District Attorney - Civil Division APPROVED AS TO FINANCIAL CONTENT: IC SUSAN YEATTS County Auditor DAVID SMITH County Manager DEPARTMENT ,_ P VAL: BY: CHRIS LORk Fire Marshal 12 Schertz FD Response Area EXHIBIT A Agenda No. 10 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Engineering / Public Works Subject: Ordinance No. 17 -D -28 - An Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas providing that the Code of Ordinances of the City of Schertz, Texas be amended by revising Chapter 86, Article V, Section 86- 1.49 Parking Prohibited. (First Reading) C• � 1 A representative of the Scenic Hills Community contacted City Staff with concern regarding vehicle parking in front of the emergency access gate that separates Scenic Hills (a private subdivision) and Fairhaven (a public subdivision), and on top of a drainage inlet on the upstream side of the gate. City staff investigated parking, emergency gate access, and drainage conveyance at this location (Exhibits A & B). The area of interest for the proposed no parking zone is 20 feet in front of the emergency access gate on Greenridge on the Fairhaven side (Exhibit Q. The Scenic Hills Community has already established a no parking zone on their side of the gate. The parking restriction would allow the gate to be opened more readily and provide better access in emergency situations. The restriction would also keep vehicles from parking on a drainage inlet on the upstream side of the gate (Exhibit B). A vehicle parked over the inlet impedes stormwater flow during rain events. When flow is restricted from efficiently entering the underground drainage system, it bypasses the inlet and continues traveling on the surface, down the street on the private roadways of Scenic Hills. Staff is also investigating potential additional drainage improvements to the same drainage system that flows from Fairhaven into Scenic Hills. The restriction from having any vehicles parked in front or on the inlet is the first step toward improving drainage in the vicinity. The proposed establishment of a No Parking zone at this location was presented to the Transportation Safety Advisory Commission (TSAC) at the regular meeting on August 3, 2017. TSAC recommended approval of a "No Parking" ordinance 20' in front of the emergency access gate, though some commissioners were concerned about this change prohibiting a person from parking in front of their own hom. Goal To ensure that emergency access gates are easily accessible and that City drainage inlets are not restricted of capturing the flow of stormwater. Community Benefit To provide for unobstructed runoff conveyance into the City's drainage inlet and to provide unimpeded emergency access through the emergency gate. Summary of Recommended Action Staff and TSAC recommend approval to prohibit parking in front of the emergency access gate and over the drainage inlet on Greenridge in the Fairhaven Subdivision. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact will be approximately $200 for no parking signs paid out of FY 2016 -17 approved budget account number 101- 359 - 551600 Street Maintenance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve on first reading Ordinance No. 17 -D -28 to amend Chapter 86, Article V, Section 86 -1.49 Parking Prohibited of the Code of Ordinances to include No Parking in front of the drainage inlet shown on Exhibit C. Exhibit A: Subdivision separation by emergency gate Exhibit B: Vehicle parked in front of gate and on the drainage inlet Exhibit C: Proposed No Parking Zone (-20 ft.) in front of Emergency Access Gate on Greenridge in Fairhaven Subdivision ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 17 -D -28 ORDINANCE NO. 17 -D -28 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS PROVIDING THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BE AMENDED BY REVISING CHAPTER 86, ARTICLE V, SECTION 86 -149 PARKING PROHIBITED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it has been established that parking should be prohibited on the drainage inlet in Fairhaven Subdivision on Greenridge 20' in front of the emergency access gate to the Scenic Hills Community Subdivision. The No Parking zone will be limited to 20' along the curb parallel the curb drainage inlet as well as in front of the access gate. This No Parking area is not currently covered under Chapter 86, Article V, Section 86 -149 Parking Prohibited of the City Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, it is recommended to add these areas as shown in Exhibit A to the City Code of Ordinances under Article V, Section 86 -149, Parking Prohibited. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: THAT: Section 1. Chapter 86, Article V, Section 86 -149 of the Code of Ordinances, Parking Prohibited by the City of Schertz, Texas is amended to add the following: (a) When signs are erected and/or, when recommended by the City Engineer or the Chief of Police, curb(s) are marked by painting them red with "No Parking" painted in white letters thereon, giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle at any time (or at times as limited) upon any of the following streets or portions thereof. Street Extent Greenridge 20' in front of emergency access gate on Greenridge (in Fairhaven Subdivision) along the curb and gutter. 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 upon the date of final adoption hereof and any publication required by law. Section 8. This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Schertz, and this Ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any other ordinances of the City of Schertz except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, are hereby repealed. Approved on first reading the 22nd day of August 2017. . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on final reading the day of August 2017. Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (SEAL OF THE CITY) Exhibit A: Proposed No Parking Zone ( -20 ft.) in Front of Drainage Inlet and Emergency access gate on Greenridge in Fairhaven Subdivision. Agenda No. 11 City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Information Technology Subject: Resolution No. 17-R-70 - A Resolution . by the City Council of Schertz authorizing expenditures in excess of $50,000 with Southern Computer Warehouse. BACKGROUND The City has historically purchased software and hardware belonging from purchasing cooperatives (DIR and Buy Board) such as Southern Computer Warehouse and SHI. This has allowed the City to procure software and hardware for best -value and capitalize on volume discounts. For FY 2016 -17 the City has been making purchases from both of these companies and anticipates making additional purchases this year and into FY 2017 -2018. The City's practice is to seek authorization from Council when expenditures with a vendor exceed $50,000 in one fiscal year. To date the City has spent approximately $59,000 with Southern Computer Warehouse. The IT Department has made the bulk of the purchases, approximately $48,000, and a few other departments having made the rest. The City anticipates making additional purchases of software and hardware before the end of the fiscal year. As a result, staff is requesting approval to spend up to $80,000 with Southern Computer Warehouse as part of the City's software and hardware program for the remainder of FY 201.6 -1.7. Staff anticipates coming to City Council in early October, at the start of the fiscal year, to seek not to exceed amounts for various IT purchases with the 3 or 4 companies from whom we generally purchase software and hardware. In recent months the Finance and Purchasing departments have been working to implement procedures with regard to purchase orders to prevent situations in the future where multiple departments making purchases with one vendor exceed $50,000 without Council approval. This will involve using the purchase order system to serve to authorize a purchase rather than approve the payment of an invoice. IT will also monitor purchases made by all departments with Southern Computer Warehouse. COMMUNITY BENEFIT Advance authorization to spend funds with a vendor allows the City to move quickly when making purchases while working to reduce costs as City resources are conserved and purchasing efficiencies are maximized through use of a streamlined procurement process to find the best pricing. _ NO IUV F.-I WAIDJ 2 t,4 1 Staff recommends that Council authorize expenditures up to $80,000 with Southern Computer Warehouse in FY 201.6 -1.7. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are budgeted and available for the City's Software and Hardware program. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17 -R -70 RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -70 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING PURCHASES UP TO $80,000 WITH SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 -17, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Schertz (the "City ") has budgeted expenditures for software licensing renewal and the IT hardware replacement program and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that Southern Computer Warehouse, a Texas cooperative, DIR and Buy Board vendor, provides the best -value to the City for essential software and hardware, and any other related technology; and WHEREAS, purchases under these programs meet the requirements under the Texas Local Government Purchasing Code rule for cooperative purchases as adopted by the City of Schertz Resolution 1 l -R -41 on August 30, 2011 amending the City's purchasing policy; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes expenditures up to $80,000 for FY 2016- 17 with Southern Computer Warehouse for related software and hardware purchases, not to exceed the approved budgeted amounts utilizing various cooperatives, DIR and Buy Board contracts. 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 22nd day of August 2017. ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor -2- Agenda No. 12 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Police Subject: Resolution 17 -R -71 - Consideration and Action approving an inter- local agreement between the City of Schertz and the Drug Enforcement Administration for two Task Force Officers. Trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs and trafficking in controlled substance pharmaceuticals exists in the San Antonio area to include the City of Schertz. Having our officers assigned to the DEA task force units provides experienced investigative staff knowledgeable in the local area and cultures to the DEA. In return, the City has use of all the resources available from multiple Federal law enforcement agencies in local investigations. There is also a financial incentive realized in shared seized assets from our coordinated efforts in area DEA investigations. Goal Renewal of the Fiscal Year 2018 . agreement for the two officers currently assigned to two DEA Task Force Units. Community Benefit There is benefit from the immediate availability of Federal resources in local investigations. Although many of these resources would ultimately become available in time, it is far more efficient when we are able to contact Schertz investigators and immediately activate such resources. There is also a financial benefit associated with shared seized assets resulting from joint investigations. Summary of Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to enter into this agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration. FISCAL IMPACT There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this agreement. The positions are existing and included in the annual budget. ATTACHMENT Resolution No. 17 -R -71 Two Interlocal Agreements between Schertz and Drug Enforcement Administration. RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -71 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS WITH THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, there is evidence that trafficking in controlled substance pharmaceuticals and/or listed chemicals exists in the San Antonio area to include the City of Schertz; and WHEREAS, there is evidence that trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs exists in the San Antonio area to include the City of Schertz; and WHEREAS, the Schertz Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration desire to enter into AGREEMENTS regarding the use of experienced investigators familiar with the local area and culture to assist in the investigations of DEA Task Force Units and the resources of various Federal agencies to assist in local investigations; and WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City enter agreements with the Drug Enforcement Administration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into agreements with the Drug Enforcement Administration; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS 1I:w Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Chief Of Police to enter into the agreements attached in 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 22nd day of August, 2017. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter ATTEST: City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) 50506221.1 - 2 - PROGRAM FUNDED STATE AND LOCAL TASK FORCE AGREEMENT This agreement is made this 1St day of October 2017, between the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter "DEA "), and the Schertz Police Department (hereinafter "SPD "). The DEA is authorized to enter into this cooperative agreement concerning the use and abuse of controlled substances under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 873. Whereas there is evidence that trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs exists in the San Antonio, Texas, area and that such illegal activity has a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the people of Texas, the parties hereto agree to the following: 1. The San Antonio Task Force will perform the activities and duties described below: a. disrupt the illicit drug traffic in the San Antonio, Texas, area by immobilizing targeted violators and trafficking organizations; b. gather and report intelligence data relating to trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs; and c. conduct undercover operations where appropriate and engage in other traditional methods of investigation in order that the Task Force's activities will result in effective prosecution before the courts of the United States and the State of Texas. 2. To accomplish the objectives of the San. Antonio Task Force, the SPD agrees to detail one (1) experienced officer(s) to the San Antonio Task Force for a period of not less than two years. During this period of assignment, the assigned officer(s) will be under the direct supervision and control of DEA supervisory personnel assigned to the Task Force. 3. The SPD officer(s) assigned to the Task Force shall adhere to all DEA policies and procedures. Failure to adhere to DEA policies and procedures shall be grounds for dismissal from the Task Force. 4. The SPD officer(s) assigned to the Task Force shall be deputized as Task Force Officer(s) of DEA pursuant to 21 USC 878. 5. To accomplish the objectives of the San Antonio Task Force, DEA will assign 33 Special Agents to the Task Force. DEA will also, subject to the availability of annually appropriated funds or any continuing resolution thereof, provide necessary funds and equipment to support the activities of the DEA Special Agents and SPD officer(s) to the Task Force. This support will include: office space, office supplies, travel funds, funds for the purchase of evidence and information, investigative equipment, training and other support items. If the SPD provides the Task Force Officer(s) with a vehicle, the DEA will pay for fuel. 6. During the period of assignment to the San Antonio Task Force, the SPD will remain responsible for establishing the salaries and benefits, including overtime, of the SPD officer(s) assigned to the Task Force and for making all payments due them. DEA will, subject to availability of funds, reimburse the SPD for overtime payments made by it to the SPD officer(s) assigned to the San Antonio Task Force for overtime, up to a sum equivalent to 25 percent of the salary of a GS -12, Step 1 (RUS) federal employee, currently $18,042.00, per officer. Note: Task Force Of overtime `Shall not include any costs for benefits, such as retirement, FICA, and other expenses. 7. In no event will the SPD charge any indirect cost rate to DEA for the administration or implementation of this agreement. 8. The SPD shall maintain on a current basis complete and accurate records and accounts of all obligations and expenditures of funds under this agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and instructions provided by DEA to facilitate on -site inspection and auditing of such records and accounts. 9. The SPD shall permit and have readily available for examination and auditing by DEA, the United States Department of Justice, the Comptroller General of the United States and any of their duly authorized agents and representatives, any and all records, documents, accounts, invoices, receipts or expenditures relating to this agreement. The SPD shall maintain all such reports and records until all litigation, claim, audits and examinations are completed and resolved or for a period of three (3) years after termination of this agreement, whichever is later. 10. The SPD shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations of the United States Department of Justice implementing those laws, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subparts C, F, G, H and 1. 11. The SPD agrees that an authorized officer(s) or employee will execute and return to DEA the attached OJP Form 4061/6, Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug -Free Workplace Requirements. The SPD acknowledges that this agreement will not take effect and no federal funds will be awarded until the completed certification is received. 12. When issuing statements, press releases requests for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or part with federal money, the SPD shall clearly state: (1) percentage of the total cost of the program or project which will be financed with federal money and (2) the dollar amount of federal funds for the project or program. 13. The term of this agreement shall be effective from the date in paragraph number one until September 30, 2018. This agreement maybe terminated by either party on 30 days advance written. notice. Billing for all outstanding obligations must be received by DEA within 90 days of the date of termination of this agreement. DEA will be responsible only for obligations incurred by SPD during the term of this agreement. 14 For the Drug Enforcement Administration: Date: Steven S. Whipple, Acting Special Agent in Charge For the Schertz Police Department: Date: Michael R. Hansen Chief of Police TACTICAL DIVERSION TASK FORCE AGREEMENT This agreement is made this 1st day of October, 2017, . between the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter "DEA "), and the Schertz Police Department (hereinafter "SPD "). The DEA is authorized to enter into this cooperative agreement concerning the use and abuse of controlled substances under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 873. Whereas there is evidence that trafficking in controlled substance pharmaceuticals and /or listed chemicals exists in the San Antonio, Texas, area and that such illegal activity has a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the people of Texas, the parties hereto agree to the following: 1. The San Antonio Tactical Diversion Squad (TDS) will perform the activities and duties described below: a. Investigate, disrupt and dismantle individuals and/or organizations involved in diversion. schemes (e.g., "doctor shopping ", prescription forgery, and prevalent retail -level violators) of controlled pharmaceuticals and/or listed chemicals in the San Antonio, Texas, area; b. Investigate, gather and report intelligence data relating to trafficking of controlled pharmaceuticals and /or listed chemicals; and Conduct undercover operations where appropriate and engage in other traditional methods of investigation in order that the Task Force's activities will result in effective prosecution . before the courts of the United States and the State of Texas. 2. To accomplish the objectives of the San Antonio TDS, the SPD agrees to detail one (1) experienced officer(s) to the San Antonio TDS for a period of not less than two years. During this period of assignment, the SPD officer(s) will be under the direct supervision and control of a DEA supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Task Force. 3. The SPD officer(s) assigned to the TDS shall adhere to DEA policies and procedures. Failure to adhere to DEA policies and procedures shall be grounds for dismissal from the Task Force. 4. The SPD officer(s) assigned to the Task Force shall be deputized as Task Force Officer(s) of DEA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 878. 5. To accomplish the objectives of the San Antonio TDS, DEA will assign three (3) Special Agents and one (1) Diversion Investigator to the Task Force. DEA will also, subject to the availability of annual Diversion Control Fee Account (DCFA) funds or any continuing resolution thereof, provide necessary funds, vehicles, and equipment to support the activities of the DEA Special Agents and SPD officer(s) assigned to the TDS. This support will include: vehicles, office space, office supplies, travel funds, funds for the purchase of evidence and information, investigative equipment, training, and other support items, as available DCFA funds permit. Task Force officers must record their work hours via DEA's activity reporting system. 6. During the period of assignment to the San Antonio TDS, the SPD will be responsible for establishing the salary and benefits, including overtime, of the officers assigned to the Task Force, and for making all payments due them. DEA will, subject to availability of funds, reimburse the agency/department for overtime payments made by it to SPD officer(s) assigned to the San Antonio TDS for overtime, up to a sum equivalent to 25 percent of the salary of a GS-12, step 1, (RUS) Federal employee, currently $18,042.00, per officer. Note: Task Force Officer's overtime "Shall not include any costsfor benefits, such as retirement, FICA, and other expenses. " 7. In no event will the SPI) charge any indirect cost rate to DEA for the administration or implementation of this agreement. 8. The SPD shall maintain on a current basis complete and accurate records and accounts of all obligations and expenditures of funds under this agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and instructions provided by DEA to facilitate on-site inspection and auditing of such records and accounts. 9. The SPD shall permit and have readily available for examination and auditing by DEA, the United States Department of Justice, the Comptroller General of the United States, and any of their duly authorized agents and representatives, any and all records, documents, accounts, invoices, receipts or expenditures relating to this agreement. The SPD shall maintain all such reports and records until litigation, claim, audits and examinations are completed and resolved, or for a period of three (3) years after termination of this agreement, whichever is later. 10. The SPD shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations of the United States Department of Justice implementing those laws, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subparts C, F, G, H and 1. 11. The SPD agrees that an authorized officer or employee will execute and return to DEA the attached OJP Form 4061/6, Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements. The SPD acknowledges that this agreement will not take effect and no Federal funds will be awarded to the SPD by DEA until the completed certification is received. 12. When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, the SPD shall clearly state: (1) the percentage of the total cost of the program or project which will be financed with Federal money and (2) the do] I ar amount of Federal funds for the project or program. 13. The term of this agreement shall be effective from the date in paragraph number one until September 30, 2018. This agreement may be terminated by either party on thirty days' advance written notice. Billing for all outstanding obligations must be received by DEA within 90 days of the date of termination of this agreement. DEA will be responsible only for obligations incurred by SPD during the term of this agreement. For the Drug Enforcement Administration: Date: Steven S. Whipple, Acting Special Agent in Charge For the Schertz Police Department: Date: Michael R. Hansen Chief of Police Agenda No. 13 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Public Works Subject: Resolution No. 17 -R -73 — A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, authorizing a contract with J3 Company, LLC for reconstruction of the Cibolo Creek Bridge at Lower Seguin Road. In June 2016, it was discovered that the low water crossing on Lower Seguin Road where it crosses the Cibolo Creek was structurally unsound. This low water crossing is at the city limits of Cibolo and Schertz and is at the Bexar and Guadalupe County Lines. The crossing closed on June 28, 2016 . and work began on alternatives to replace this low water crossing. After several meetings with the City of Cibolo, Guadalupe County and Bexar County representatives, it has been agreed that the most cost - effective solution is to replace the current structure with a new structure constructed of 2 4'X3' drainage boxes. This project will provide improvements to the low water crossing by increasing the water flow capacity from 105 cfs to 155 cfs and increase the roadway width from approximately sixteen feet to twenty -two feet. This will increase the safety of the traveling public as they meet each other at the crossing. Although not a tremendous improvement in flow, this new structure will result in fewer closures of this low water crossing. Resolution 16 -R -88 was approved on December 20, 2016 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an inter local agreement with the City of Cibolo to share costs associated with the demolition and replacement of the bridge at Lower Seguin Rd at Cibolo Creek. Council has approved a budget adjustment for this project to be completed from the City's Drainage Fund. On December 20, 2016, City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., (LAN) for the design of the Cibolo Creek Bridge Project. The construction project was publicly bid using the Competitive Sealed Proposal Method. Seven bids were received for the project. Proposals were reviewed and scored based on criteria including cost, experience, qualifications, reputation, capability, resources, corporate history and stability. Public Works reviewed all proposals and recommends J3 Company, LLC to perform the work. The design engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost was $325,545.00. J3 Company has proposed to perform the work for $298,489 and the city will also put in a contingency of $30,000.00 for an overall. Not to Exceed amount of $328,489. Once the contract is authorized, construction should begin within two to three weeks and will take between 60 and 90 days. COMMUNITY BENEFIT Construction of the new bridge will make the commute between the City of Schertz and the Cibolo shorter and will benefit not only the daily commuters but will increase the efficiency of SCUCISD with their bus routes. FISCAL IMPACT This project will be funded from the Schertz Drainage Fund Balance 204 - 900 - 551900 that has a $939,271 balance as of September 30, 2016. Per the executed ILA, the City of Cibolo will pay for half of the cost, so the City's estimated obligation for construction is a not to exceed amount of $164,245 less any dollars or services in kind contributed by Bexar and/or Guadalupe County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 17 -R -73 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with J3 Company, LLC in a not to exceed amount of $328,489 for reconstruction of Cibolo Creek Bridge at Lower Seguin Road. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 17 -R -73 Contract with J3 Company, LLC Listing of bids received RESOLUTION NO. 17 -R -73 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH J3 COMPANY, LLC FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CIBOLO CREEK BRIDGE AT LOWER SEGUIN WHEREAS, the City solicited competitive sealed proposals from qualified vendors for constructions services related to the Cibolo Creek Bridge Project; and WHEREAS, after extensive analysis of the responses provided by each of the seven (7) prospective vendors, City staff is confident that J3 Company, LLC can provide the best service at the best value; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to contract with J3 Company, LLC pursuant to the recommendation made by City Staff. C • • • • • • i THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and deliver the contract with J3 Company, LLC in the amount not to exceed $328,489 related to the Cibolo Creek Bridge 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 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 22"d day of August, 2017 ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael Carpenter, Mayor M MFJIO f. � I, i • 1 .11 ON Wei 91 919MIAM 91 • . • This Agreement is made and entered into as of the day of 2017 by and between the: E "CONTRACTOR" Company, C. PO Box i, Comfort, `0 830-995-5100 Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction, Solicitation 4 17- PW- 24 -C -01 Scertz City Project 4ST -C -1705 kIVIEW t 6.4 Mily4v-olit.lgitumm.* WAILITAK"LiLijmlr-jdvAidL$jr-lid e r- • e'! • e. a r- -e r e -e r • r- • e.- e. -s r • r e �- -e r •e -� r •- i e- e e -e e - •, r s e s• e-r, in the General Conditions to this Agreement. 2.5.2 Final Completion means act. e • • of - Work, e extras or ,mm lb—da-14c that may be required pursuant to the Contract Documents. f # ` 4 PAYMENT § 4.1.1 Applications for Payment shall show the percentage of completion of each portion of the Work as of e of period covered by - Application for Payment. - otherwise noted, application for r. yment shall be done on • basis. § 4.1.2 Subject to other provisions of the Contract Documents, the amount of each progress payment shall be computed as follows: J Take that portion of • properly allocable to completed ork determined b • • the r- .► a rl • of • • of ork • the e of the Contract • e to that portion of • schedule values, less retainage of - r (5M%). Pending determination ofcostto - OWNER of • Work, • not • be e r .2 Add that portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to materials and equipme delivered and suitably stored at the site for subsequent incorporation in the complete • e n (or, if approved in advance b - • ' suitably stored off the sit Jill III I 111 .4 Subtract amounts, if any, for which the ENGINEER has withheld or nullified a Certificate for Payment: modified under following .1 Add, upon Substantial Completion of the Work, a sum sufficient to increase the total payments to the full amount of the Contract Sum, less such amounts as the ENGINEER shall determine for incomplete Work, retanage applicable to such work; and unsettled claims, and •e if final completion of • delayed through no fau of i ' ' any additional amounts payable. § 4.1.5 Except with the OWNER's prior approval, the CONTRACTOR shall not make advancA payments to suppliers for materials • equipment which have not been delivered and stored at th'i site. .1 the CONTRACTOR has fully performed the Contract except for the CONTRACTOR's responsibility to correct Work as provided in the General Conditions, and to satisfy other requirements, if any, which extend beyond final payment; and .2 a letter of Final Acceptance has been issued by the ENGINEER and accepted byte OWNER. TAIII .v,f the ENGINEER's final Certificate for Payment: OWNER Bye Title: arm Bond No. PRF9249263 3R�� Payment Bond Page I of 3 AIM= in writing to t resses S to addresses provided in the Contract Documents. IN W ITNE SS WHE REOF, the duly authorized representatives orthe Prind pal and the SIGNED and SEALED this 4th day of August -12017 . The date of bond shall not he prior to date of Contratt. ATTES' - '* _4'e (Prin 4ipa ) S taIV R A L) *6css as to Principa I I ------ --------- Witness as to Surety Title:,,, Address.- P�• , Box 129 Comfort, TX 78013 ee *000*1 .11 1 1000 ! 40 ! 000100100111 Box 1227 "0 M- IM ppro,Tc City of Schertz By: John C. Kessell Title: City Manager Date: Pqmcnt Bond Page 3 of 3 PERFORMANCE MAW"' KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: MA 1;+ 14 — I I I' Bond No. PRF9249263 as Principal herein, and e y an cP—n —We tAPQf Wy art mp� pw,v Colonial American Casualty and Sure Ly�2p Co any , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State , of Maryland and who is authorized and admitted to issue surety bonds in the State of the da of 17 , herein rel-rred t as "(he Contract" and y — 20 e 0 regard shal I not create as to any party a duty relate t ereto. T e penal limit of t its ond s ag Performance Bond Page I of 3 101111111illillille PROVIDED, HOWEVE R, that this bond is executed pursuant to Chapter 2253 or the IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the Principal and the Surety have executed this instrument. SIGNED and SEALED this 4th day of August _, 2017 The date of bond shall not be prior to date of Contract. ATT . V �Orinc`i-'-' J) Se 7-c ATTEST: Secretary (S E A L) Witness as to Surety Address: P.O� Box 127 Cgmfort, TX 78013 Address- P.O. Box 1227 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Telephone Number: §47,-605-6000 Performance Bond Pap 2 of 3 An original copy of Power of Attorney shall be attached to and by the Atto rney-in- Fact. City of Schertz WO shertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 18154 Title: City Manager - Date: Performunce Bond Page 3 of 3 e e e FIDELITY e DEPOSIT OF 1 POWER OF 1 The said Vice President does hereby certify that the extract set forth on the reverse side hereof is a, true copy of Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, and is now in force; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, - said President o subscribed and affixed the Corporate of . r ZURICH AMERICAN . ANCE COMPACOLONIAL . CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT OF 1 d. of 4.D, 2 t ATTES '3, B Secretary- Eric D. Barnes' State of Maryland County of Baltimore On this 13th day of January, A.D. 2015, before the subscriber, :a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly commissioned and qualified; MICHAEL BOND, Vice President, and ERIC D. BARNES, Secretary, of the "Companies, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly sworn; deposeth and saith; that he/she is the said officer of the Company aforesaid, and that the seals affixed to the preceding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies, and that the said Corporate Seals and the signature as such officer were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporations. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written, POA -F 168 - 0087 �r +tr ar�siir >s�` Maria D, Adamski, Notary Public My Commission Expires:; July 8, 2019 POA -F 168 - 0087 Texas Important Notice IMPORTANT NOTICE To obtain information or make a complaint: You may call Zurich North America's toll -free telephone number for information or to make a complaint at: 1 -800. 382 -2150 You may contact the Texas Department of Insurance to obtain information on companies, coverages, rights, or complaints at: You may write the Texas Department of Insurance: P.O. Box 149104 Austin, TX- 78714 -9104 Fax: (512) 490 -1007 Web: www.tdi.texas.gov E -mail: ConsumerProtection @tdi.texas'.gou PREMIUM OR CLAIM DISPUTES Should you have a dispute concerning your premium or about a claim, you should contact the company first. If the dispute is not resolved, you may contact the Texas Department of Insurance. ATTACH THIS NOTICE TO YOUR POLICY This notice is for information only and does not become a part or condition of the attached document. VI O i PORTANTE Para obtener informaci ®n o para presentar una queja: Usted puede Ilamr al numero de telefono gratuito de Zurich North America's Para obtener informacion o para presentar una queja al: 1- 800 - 382 -2150 Usted puede comunicarse con el Departamento de Se gurus de Texas Para obtener informacion sobre com papas, coberturas, derechos, o quejas al 1-800- 252 - 3439 Usted puede escribir al Departamento de Seguros de Texas a:' P.O. Box 149104 Austin, TX 78714 =9104 Fax; (512) 490- 1007 Sitio web: www.tdi,texas;gov E -mail: ConsumerProtection @tdi.texas.gov DISPUTAS -r- PRIMAS r SEGURGS a RECLAMACIONES- -. l *I- compania primero, disputa no es resuelta, usted e •- s i 4t�. s e- -a t e. JUNTE ESTE AVISO A SU P6LIZ : Este aviso es solamente para propositos informativos y no se con - vierte en parte o en condicion del documento adjunto, U -GU -296 -E (06/15) Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SCHERTZ L Hand-delivered d Courier Submissions: Purchasing & Asset Management Department 400 Schertz'Parkway, Bldg. ## 2, Schertz, TX 78154 i i' 1 1 17"1 A � JV LOWER SEGIAN ROAD s RECONSTRUCTION PRO&CT Invitation for Competitive Sealed Proposals' -t Sealed submittals are required. Submittals shall be delivered to the City's Purchasing Department at the address set forth below or before 11:00 a.m. CST on July 13, 2017. All submittals must be labeled on the outside with the Respondent's name and the name of the Project. Late submittals will not be considered. WWI of the responses are to be addressed to- 1400 schertz Pkwy, Bidg 91 Schertz, TX 78154 Effective January 1, 2006, Chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government Code requires that any vendor or pet-son considering doing business with a local government entity must disclose in the Questionnaire Form CIQ, the vendor or person's affiliation or business relationship that might cause a conflict of interest with a local government entity. This questionnaire must be filed, by law, with the City Secretary of the City of Schertz not later than the 7th business day after the date the person becomes aware of facts that require the statement be filed. See Section 176.006, Local Government Code. A person commits an offense if the pet-son violates Section 176.006, Local Government Code. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. For more information or to obtain the Questionnaire CIQ go to the Texas Ethics Commission web page at w�vN,v.etliics.state.tx.Lis/fot-t,ns/ 0 Q__ V AT Certificate of Interested Parties Effective January 1, 2016, pursuant to House Bill 1295 passed by the 84th Texas Legislature (Section 2252.908, Texas Government Code, as amended) and formal rules released by the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC), all contracts with private business entities requiring approval by the Schertz City Council will require the on-line completion of Form 1295 "Certificate of Interested Pat-ties." Form 1295 is also required for any and all contract amendments, extensions or renewals. Contractors are required to complete and file electronically with the Texas Ethics Commission using the online filing application. Please visit the State of Texas Ethics Commission website, littp s s4/yy A w.ethics.state.tx.tis/v%,liatsrieNv/elf info tbrm 295 1.htm and _y h (,5g ,. atLt\.usAec/1295-1nfo.htm for more information. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLIANCE, PLEASE CONSULT YOUR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL. COMPLIANCE IS THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH PERSON OR AGENT OF A PERSON WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE FILING REQUIREMENT. AN OFFENSE UNDER CHAPTER 176 IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. City of chertz Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction f�"OSAL OF J3 Company. LLC m , a corporatiqM A partnership consisting of An individual doing business as 1s s p- i A &4 r-f Jk 11 t I and (Cents) (s -.1) ct -212f-1 --) BF- I Bidders Signature CITY OF SCHFRTZ PRICE PPOPOSALFOPM PROJEC1" NAME: LOWER SEGUIN ROAD AT CIB3LO RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTNO.. ST -C -1705 J3 OMPM I n A 6rof r*", CITY OF SCHERTZ PRICE. PROPOSAL FORM; PROJECT NAME: LOWVER SEGUIN ROAD AT CIBOLO RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO_ ST -C -1705 that die: unit prices shown on Us complete computer print -out for all ofthe hid items and the alternates contained. Ea .::bid will be tabulated using these unit prices and no other information from this print -out:. bid amount Date: %`f-.- ,°'"' , Title: N1,7 44161 City of Schertz Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction ITEM ITEM ICES CRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE IN TOTAL IN NO. UNIT PRICE TO BE FIGURES FIGURES ITTEN IN WORDS) 1502 MOBILIZATION LS Dollars S7/41�Z�� S and Cents 1555 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND LS I REGULATION 1HZ,1-;RV,4 —Dollars $ $ ov C? and —Cents 1562 TREE PROTECTION LF 296 Dollars $ $ and J95K Cents 1570 STORM WATER POLLUTION LS I CONTROL F -F /Y-wWally, 7&_--tt;Pw0 Dollars _2174E t� 0 9-7, and 4z —Cents 1580 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS EA 2 A PO, , Ft 9 F1 Z" Dollars C12 and /Z -Cents 2221.1 REMOVING EXISTING PAVEMENTS SY 222 AND STRUCTURES (ASPHALT) Dollars $ Ld 'and Cents I J3 Company, L.L.C. BF-2 Bidder's Signature City of Schertz Lower Seguin Read. at Cibolo Reconstruction ITEM ITEM.. DESCRIPTION UNIT %DTI' UNIT PRICE I N TOTAL Its NO. UNIT PRICE TO BE FIGURES FIGURES BITTEN IN WORDS) 2221.2 REMOVING EXISTING PAVEMENTS SY 172 AND STRUCTURES (CONCRETE) 1 Dollars $ ;mow s a., and L Cents 2314 CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY 60 Dollars and � Cents 2315 ROADWAY ,EXCAVATION CY` 90 w. Dollars and Cents 2319.0 BORROW CY 100 Dollars $ k as ;2—a ;/o and r � Cents 2319.1 BORROW (PAVEMENT) CY 60 Dollars S_ and 1;5 Cents 2741 HOT MIX ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT, TON 70 Y B (3 -INCH COMP. DEPTH) Dollars i and Cents Company, LLG, BF-3 Bidder's Signature City of Schertz Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction ITEM ITEMDESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE IN TOTAL. IN NO. UNIT PRICE TO BE FIGURES FIGURES BITTEN IN ODDS) 2751 CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CROP) (9- SY 423 INCH THICK) and Cents 2764 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS (TY EA 10 II -A -A) Dollars $ $ a and Cents 2771.1 REINFORCED CONCRETE CURB LF 266 (MONOLITHIC) " Dollars $ $ 6,570 and Cents 2771,2 REINFORCED CONCRETE LF 60 SAWTOOTH CURB (MONOLITHIC) Dollars $` $` and Cents 2921 HYDROMULCH ACRE 0:04 !�014e Dollars $ $ and Cents 2925 FLEXIBLE GROWTH MEDIUM SY 194 Dollars $ $ 716` and Cents J3 Company, L.L.C. BF-4 Bidder's Signature City of Schertz Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction i r W ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE IN TOTAL IN NO. UNIT PRICE TO BE UNIT FIGURES FIGURES IN WORDS) 100- PREPARING RIGHT-OF-WAY AC 0,1 6001 —Dollars $ -4-)l $ _4 z and -Cents 401- FLOWABLEBACKFILL CY 51 6001 llievo - —Dollars and --,er Cents 402- TRENCH EXCAVATION LF 146 6001 PROTECTION Dollars $ and Cents 432- CONCRETE RIP-RAP (6-INCH CY 66 6003 THICK) Le Dollars $ and Cents 432- RlPRAP (STONE PROTECTION) (12 CY 100 6031 INCH) Dollars $ and Cents 462- C 1 C BOX CULVERT (4 FT X 3 FT) LF 146 6004 Dollars $ 35�2 $ and Cents 466- WINGWALL (EW - S) (HW = 5 FT) EA 2 6166 e'vand Dollars , $ / 7, zx-, x o s Cents A Company, L.L.C. BF-5 Bidder's Signature Lre City of Schertz Lower Seguin load at Cibolo Reconstruction ITEM ITEMDESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE IN TO'T'AL I . (UNIT PRICE TO BE FIGURES FIGURES WRITTEN IN WORDS) 666- 4 -INCA WIDE, YELLOW STRIPING LF 324 6345 Dollars and Cents 6001- PORTABLE CHANGEABLE DAY 14 6001 MESSAGE SIGN ;. Dollars 2 and Cents L.L.G. J3 Company, BF -6 Bidder's Signature v - City of Schertz Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo Reconstruction I Complete the additional requirements of the Proposal which are included on the following pages. 2. Bidd& must return pages BF-I through BF-12 With this Proposal. Any and all Addenda which s by the City with appropriate signatures acknowledging receipt shall • attached to and made a part of this bid. 3. The Work included in this Proposal shall be Substantially Complete, as defined in the General Conditions within 120 calendar days from isjLiangg L)L Jhg N rAice to Proceed Additional 100 days for the Additive Alternate is selected by the City to be constructed. e consluerect responsive. IT a question is not applicatite, put tile Toras 751 appitcaote' in the space provided. 1. What similar public works projects has your company completed? I BF - 7 Bidder's Sigriatu7r M�M � B Company, LLC Project Refrences • Owner / Project Prime or Final Contract G.C. Contact Contact Date Project Name/ Desc Sub Orig Contract Amount Amount Project Location Name Name Number County Public John 210-216 - Current Babcock Road Phase IV Prime $ 8,474,882.17 Bexar County Works Comacho 7177 lRedland City of San City of San Current RD. North Prime $ 16,100,000.00 Antonio Antonio Antonio, Runway 12R -30L Electrical IMP. & City of San Aviation Current Terminal Area TXWY IMP PKG 4 Prime $ 10,574,620.00 Antonio Departme Antonio, City of San Aviation Current ITerminal Area TXWY Imp. PKG 2 Prime $ 15,197,187.00 Antonio Departme Bexar Robert 214 -543- 2015 Knoll Creek Prime $ 5,136,423.25 $ 5.04 Bexar County County Williams 7722 Bexar 210 -422- 2015 101d Fredericksburg Road LWC Prime $ 660,937.00 $ 653,000.00 Bexar County County Todd Putman 5306 Huebner Creek RSWF @ Prue Road LC- Bexar Robert 210 -289- 2015 15 Prime $ 2,000,000.00 $ 2.71 Bexar County County Guitterez 5644 Bexar 512 -971- 2014 lWhisper Creek at Hollyhock Prime $ 687,879.00 $ 700,000.00 Bexar County County Brent Millar 5045 Antonio, Tyson City of San Aviation Duncan, P.E., 713 -267- 2014 Taxiway RC Extension PHASE 3 Prime $ 1,000,000.00 $ 850,000.00 Antonio Departme Aecom 2945 Antonio, City of San Aviation 2014 ISAIA GA FIS TXWY and Apron Imp. Prime $ 3,500,000.00 $ 3.25 Antonio Departme San Antonio International Airport - Antonio, Randy RWY 12R -30L Rehab and Terminal Area City of San Aviation Jenkins, P.E., 210 -541- 2014 TWY - PKG 1 Prime $ 12,724,415.00 $ 12.80 Antonio Departme Kimley Horn 9166 Luis A Cuellar, Kendall County, Kendall P.E., Klotz 210 -736- 2013 1 Herff Road Prime $ 4,592,381.00 $ 5.01 TX County Assoc. 0425 Bexar County, Bexar MAryAnne 210 -335- 2013 Babcock Road Phase V Prime $ 8,474,882.17 $ 8.60 TX County Carrizales 2066 Antonio, Tyson San Antonio International Airport - City of San Aviation Duncan, P.E., 713 -267- 2012 3/21 Ext. (RWY 4/22 Phase 4) Prime $ 6,837,934.50 $ 7,337,338.64 Antonio Departme Aecom 2945 Asplundh LCRA Transmission Line - Comfort to Comfort TX to Brush RandyMcCull 352 -266- 2012 Junction Sub $ 891,186.79 Abiline, TX Control och 0379 Southbay 480 -821- 2012 Randolph Air Force Base Drain Sub $ 358,972.00 $ 361,672.00 RAFB, S.A., TX EDC Paul Renteria 2630 Estates of Bridgepoint Units Alon Dev.- 210 -494- 2012 5,13,14,4,6,9,10,11,12 Prime $ 4,768,739.50 $ 5,293,473.00 Helotes, TX Group LTD Israel Fogiel 4696 210 -207- 2012 Islado Creek Bridge jPrime 1 $ 267,700.00 San Antonio, TX ICIMS I David McBeth 6342 nd Stevens Geoff 214 -537- 2012 Stevens Ranch Unit 2B -1 Prime $ 1,498,380.00 $ 1,506,103.00 San Antonio, TX LTD Fitzgerald 5053 Oakland Constructi 505 -320- 2012 ISomerset CPS Solar Farm Sub $ 380,000.00 $ 704,551.50 Somerset, TX on Jesse Lee 8107 City of San Antonio PW Maintenance City of AL Siam 210 -207- 2012 and Construction - Package C Prime $ 6,547,650.00 San Antonio, TX S.A. Ferdous, P.E. 6941 Racker Road Streets, Utilities and City of 210 -215- 2012 IDrainage Prime $ 2,805,671.00 $ 3,333,278.50 San Antonio, TX Windcrest Jim Bray 0276 Southbay 480 -821- 2012 Randolph AirForce Base - East Apron Sub $ 1,606,632.80 $ 1,803,271.50 RAFB, S.A., TX EDC Paul Renteria 2630 City of San Antonio IDC Storm Water City of Al Siam 210 -207- 2011 land Drainage - Package 11 Prime $ 6,209,950.00 San Antonio, TX S.A. Ferdous, P.E. 6941 i 1 i' i i Henry Paris ( "P.J. ") Jons III, President and 50% Owner PJ was born in 1977 at the Ft. Hood Military Base in Killeen, Texas. PJ grew up in Kerrville, Texas where he attended and graduated from Tivy High School in 1996. PJ attended and graduated from Texas A &M University, College Station, Texas in May of 2000 with a Bachelors in Science / Construction Science Degree. Upon graduation from Texas A &M, PJ began work in the construction industry specializing in heavy civil and concrete construction. Some of PJ's post graduate experience is as follows: HB Zachry, San Antonio, Texas Project Manager, (January 2004 to May 2004) - Managed HEB Maintenance Facility and various other projects Yantis Corporation, San Antonio, Texas General Dirt Superintendent, (January 2000 to January 2004 /June 2004 to August 2005) - Supervised/Managed variety of subdivision infrastructure, utilities, bridges, and drainage projects... averaging 10 to 20 projects at any given time - Bonded Projects include the Taxiway Delta and East Air Cargo apron at San Antonio International Airport, the Loop IH410 /Culebra Road Regional Storm Water Facility in San Antonio, the West Dietz Creek Drainage Project in Schertz, the Babcock Road Extension in San Antonio, the Ravenfield Bridge Project in San Antonio, Keller Road Drainage Project in Bexar County, Leon Springs Drainage Project in Leon Springs, and many others - Subdivision Infrastructure Projects include Westbury Heights, Hillcrest, Tally Ranch, Park at French Creek, Grandview, Alamo Ranch, Champions Park, Tuscany Heights, multiple phases of Mountain Lodge, and many others - Projects ranged from $500,000 to $10 plus million Hager Construction, Inc., Kerrville, Texas General Superintendent /Project Manager, (August 2005 to August 2006) - Supervised/Managed several large ranch projects consisting of multiple structures, airstrips, lakes, fences, utilities, roads, clearing, etc... - Projects ranged from $2 to $4 million In August of 2006, PJ joined forces with his father, Rit and brother, Hugh in co- founding J3 Excavation Company, LLC. PJ is in charge of the Operations Department of J3. PJ is currently 50% owner of J3 Company, LLC. Admissions /Memberships /Associations: • Association of General Contractors ( "AGC ") /San Antonio Chapter • Association of Former Students/Texas A &M University • Texas A &M 12' Man/Kerrville Chapter • National Rifle Association; Boards /Community Service: • Sponsor — Cowboy Artists of America Association • St. Peter's Episcopal Church Member Hugh R. Jons, Jr., Vice - President and 50% Owner Hugh was born at the military base in Wurzburg, West Germany in 1975 and grew up in Kerrville, Texas where he attended and graduated from Tivy High School in 1993. Hugh attended the University of Texas on a baseball scholarship and graduated from Southwest Texas State University in 1998 with a Bachelors of Business Administration degree in Finance. Hugh went on to attend Law School at St. Mary's University and graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 2001. From 1998 through 2006, Hugh practiced law as a civil litigator in primarily south Texas venues. In August of 2006, Hugh co- founded J3 Excavation Company, LLC with his father, Rit and brother, PJ. Hugh is in charge of the Office and Project Management for J3. Hugh is currently 50% owner of J3 Company, LLC. Admissions/Memberships /Associations: • Attorney and Member of the Texas State Bar since 2001 • Admitted to Practice in United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Western and Northern Federal Districts of Texas • Texas Bar Association; San Antonio Bar Association; Kerrville Bar Association; Federal Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association; Order of Barristers • Association of General Contractors ( "AGC ") /San Antonio Chapter • National Rifle Association Lifetime Member Boards /Community Service: • Kerr County 911 Board of Directors • St. Peter's Episcopal Church Vestry Member J3 Estimatin Mario Valdez, Company Estimator/ Head Project Manager Jose Velez, Estimator/Project Manager Mason Bonham, Assistant Jr. Estimator Stephanie Stewart, Estimating Contract Admin Craig Patterson, Process and Control Engineer / Project Manager Craig Patterson joined the J3 team in June 2015 as process and control engineer / project manager. Craig has over 30 years of experience in civil engineering design, fieldwork, and project management including extensive experience with interstate highways, municipal roadways, bridges, and private developments. Craig has a breadth of experience with private and public clients, and a proven capacity for staff development and managing engineering and construction projects from start to finish. Craig is proficient with formulating and integrating industry standard, engineering control disciplines such as planning, procurement, estimating, finance, scheduling, and document management. Craig's job experience with consulting engineering firms, small construction companies, and top 500 construction companies enables him to handle most challenges in our industry. B Operations Pat Debner, Project Manager Angela Vargas, Project Manager Josh Surface, Project Manager Chris Reyes, Project Manager Chance Haynie, Site Superintendent Aaron Ortegon, Site Superintendent Marty Moore, Site Superintendent Barry Tomlinson, Site Superintendent Jim Price, Site Superintendent Juan Ortiz, Site Superintendent Martin Silva, Site Superintendent David Long, Site Superintendent Leroy Smythe, Special Projects Superintendent Melissa Valdez, Project Coordinator Mel Silva, Project Admin Assistant J3 Fleet Operation Matt Fox, Fleet Operations Manager Aurora Dorado, Fleet Admin J3 Safety Division Brandon Ritchey, Safety /Claims Operations Manager Brandon is a Texas Tech alumni with continued education through UTSA and Columbia Southern University earning a Master of Science in Occupational Safety and Health Environmental Management. He plays a vital role in the company serving as our DOT/FMCSA/OSHA trainer and advises on operations of safety regulations, proper protocol and procedures. Brandon conducts all incident investigations and serves as our in -house audit safety officer for the field, shop, and office aiding in loss prevention. Mr. Ritchey is also certified in The Smith System comprehensive driver training program helping all J3 employees practice safety awareness behind the wheel. J3 Administrative Timothy Braden, Chief Financial Officer Timothy L. Braden, CPA was born in 1961 in San Antonio, Texas. He attended Antonian College Preparatory and then Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He graduated from SMU with a Bachelor of Business Administration Degree in Accounting in 1983. He acquired his CPA License in 1986 after 3 years in Public Accounting. Tim moved into private business as the controller /shareholder of a major Travel Agency. In the late 80's, he took over the operations of a Wholesale Gasoline Distributor. This business was sold to another distributor in 1996. He then returned to the accounting practice by becoming the Controller of the Scooter Store based in New Braunfels, Tx. In 2001, Mr. Braden joined Alamol as Chief Financial Officer and was instrumental in the rapid growth of the business from a small Environmental Contractor into the large multi divisional business that it is now, enjoying $25 +mil in revenues annually. Tim Braden joined J3 Company September 4, 2012 in the newly created role of Chief Financial Officer.: As Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Braden's responsibilities include managing day -to -day, monthly, quarterly and annual accounting department activities; applying generally accepted accounting principles to all activities; processing all invoices and payments to vendors and supervising timely remittances; monitoring, managing and forecasting cash flow; scheduling and directing billing to clients; preparing general ledger and financial statements on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis; monitoring activities of the firm's accounting department; negotiating and maintaining relations with banking and financial institutions and administrating the computerized accounting system. Toni Bibb, Assistant Controller / AP -AR Administrator Ashley Pollock, Accounting Assistant Cindy Gregory, Payroll / HR Administrator Lisa Bernhard, Operations Admin Assistant Annabel Munoz, Receptionist X:UD COMPANY, LLC�FORMSIPROJECY FORMS�BID SUBMITTAL FORMS,.Cumpa yTeam. 102015.doc °a c pressor 185 Compressor ��'185cgm Air compressor FIRIMMI 185cgm Air Compressor [Asphalt Cold Planer Attachment Hole ... Rider . III II# # ��■ i #i w OEM tomatic 6"-12" Barrier Lifter Mal 0 Auto 6"-12" Barrier Lift IIMWDIWII�KAuto 6"-12' Barrier Lift ackhoe Loader _... C �♦y k _ ®AIM - # r4 � � u it ��, $ s :...... � a �,■1, -... �� s B 4 I -t Terrain Crane �Concrete Breaker Concrete Breaker '�® a- Forms 15"x16" Paving [Cement Mixer M16,14 i Triple Roller 28'Tube Paver Off lHy raulic Form Paver CS -02 2010 Husqvarna FS6600D36 Concrete Saw Selfprop 70 -79HP CS -03 Stihl MS361 Cut -Off Machine Saw CS -04 2013 Husqvarna FS6600D36 Concrete Saw Selfprop 70 -79HP CS -05 2010 Husqvarna FS6600D Concrete Saw Self Prop 60 -69HP CS -06 12010 Husqvarna FS6600D Concrete Saw Self Prop 60 -69HP CS -07 2010 Husqvarna FS6600D Concrete Saw Self Prop 60 -69HP D -01 1998 Caterpillar D6R XL Dozer D -03 1977 Caterpillar D8K Dozer D -04 2006 Caterpillar D6T XL Dozer D -05 1999 Caterpillar D6R Dozer D -12 2010 Caterpillar D3K XL Dozer D -14 1980 Caterpillar D8K Dozer w /SU Blade D -15 Caterpillar DK5 Dozer D -16 1997 Caterpillar D7R Dozer D -17 2001 Caterpillar D7R Dozer DT -06 1988 Peterbilt 378.00 Tri /A Dump Truck DT -07 2002 Kenworth W900 T/A Dump Truck DT -08 1999 Kenworth T800 Tri /A Dump Truck DT -09 1998 Kenworth T800 Tri /A Dump Truck DT -10 2000 Freightliner TT Tri /A Dump Truck DT -12 2000 Mack CL713 Tri /A Dump Truck DT -13 1994 Mack RD690S Tri /A Dump Truck DT -14 1998 Freightliner FLD120 Tri /A Dump Truck DT -15 1996 Mack RD688S Tri /A Dump Truck DT -16 2012 Mack GU713 T/A Dump Truck DT -17 2012 Mack GU713 T/A Dump Truck E -01 Kobelco ED150 Excavator E -04 Caterpillar 320DL Excavator E -05 Caterpillar 330DL Excavator E -09 Caterpillar 330CL Excavator E -10 Caterpillar 349EL Excavator E -12 2011 Caterpillar 330DL Excavator E -13 2013 Caterpillar 303.50 Mini Hydraulic Excavator E -14 2013 Caterpillar 336EL Excavator ED -01 2000 Ranch Manufacturing T/A End Dump Trailer ED -02 2000 Ranco ED26 -34 T/A End Dump Trailer ED -03 2006 T/A End Dump Trailer FB -01 1999 P]T PJ Trailer 20' GN Trailer (Louis) FB -02 2008 Load 24' Load Trail GN (Tri -Axle) FB -04 2008 Top Hat GNK 30' GN (Concrete Crew) FB -06 2007 TXPR GN Trailer (Tri -Axle) FB -07 1993 Birmingham 20' Pintle Hitch FB -08 2012 Shop Built GN (Fronie Trailer) FB -09 2008 Centex GVWR 7000 18' Flat Bed Trailer FB -10 2012 Southwest Gooseneck GHD3286212EH 32' GN (HJ /PJ) FB -11 1998 Shop Built 33' Gooseneck Trailer FB -12 2008 Top Hat FB -13 2004 Big Tex FB -14 2013 PJT CC -20GN Hammer FB -15 2013 PJT CC -20GN Hammer FB -16 2014 PJT CC -20G 20'X6 Channel Gooseneck Trailer FB -17 2011 R &W CL713 Triple Tube Transport Trailer FB -18 11995 Lufkin FL11-ST T/A Flatbed Trailer FB -19 1997 Freuhauf CHN613 T/A Flatbed Trailer FB -20 1995 Freuhauf T800 T/A Flatbed Trailer FB -21 2017 Southwest Gooseneck GNEH Gooseneck Equipment Hauler FB -22 2017 Southwest Gooseneck 14KGVWR Bumper Pull 20' by 83" Heavy Duty Tandem Axle FT -02 2000 Utiltiy UT FW -01 1999 AA Trailer FW -02 2002 Fuel Shelton Fuel Shelton Trailer G -01 Gradall G3WD 4x4 G -02 Gradall G3WD 4x4 G -04 1988 Gradall G3WD 4x5 G -06 Gradall G3WD G -07 1995 Gradall G3WD G -08 1994 Gradall G3WD Wheeled Excavator G -09 1995 Gradall G3WD 4x4 G -10 Gradall G3WD 4x4 G -11 Gradall GE -01 Colman Generator GE -03 2006 Multiquip DCA25SSIU2C Generator 19 -29 KVA GE -04 Honda 650OW Industrial Wheeled Generator GE -05 GE-06 GE -07 2014 Kubota 2- Generators GE -08 Kubota KJ- S150VX 15 KW Generator GPS -01 Trimble GPS Base Station and Rovers a. Long) GPS -02 Trimble GPS Base Station and Rovers 0. Rodriguez) GPS -03 Sitech R998 GPS Machine, Base & Rover GPS -04 HH -01 Kent Backhoe Hydraulic Hammer HH -02 lAtlascopco SBC410 Skid Steer Hydraulic Hammer HH -03 2012 Caterpillar 320 HMR Excavator Hammer HH -06 Atlascopco SBU220 Skid Steer Hydraulic Hammer HH -07 Caterpillar 4D HMR QC HH -08 Caterpillar IH55D lHammer -09 Caterpillar 4D HMR QC Hammer H -10 I r HH Icaterpillar 14D HMR QC Hammer HH -11 Caterpillar 336 MNR Hammer HH -12 Bobcat Drop Hammer HH -13 Caterpillar 4D HMRQC Hammer HT -03 1996 Mack CL713 Haul Truck HT -05 2001 Mack CL733 Haul Truck HT -06 2006 Mack CHN613 lHaulTruck HT -07 11998 1989 Kenworth T800 Haul Truck - T/A Day Cab HT -08 Kenworth T800 HT -09 2013 Kenworth T800 Haul Truck HT -10 1992 Freightliner Tractor was DT -05 HTT -02 2008 Witzco Challenger 50 Ton Low Boy Trailer HTT -03 2008 Trail King 110 HDG 55 Ton Trailer -w /4th axel HTT -03A 1999 Caterpillar IT28G HTT -03 Attachment HTT -04 1999 Fontaine 938H QC 55 Ton Trailer JB -01 Caterpillar 924H 20' Storage Container JB -02 1998 Caterpillar IT28G 20' Storage Container JB -03 1998 Caterpillar IT28G 20'x8' Storage Container JB -04 1997 Caterpillar 950F II 40' Storage Container IB -05 2011 Caterpillar 930H 40' Storage Container L -01 11989 ICase IS80K jLoader L -02 I lCaterpillar 1930G ILoader L -03 12006 Caterpillar 930G Loader L -04 2006 Caterpillar 930G Loader L -07 2006 Caterpillar 928GZ Loader L -08 2010 Caterpillar 938H Loader L -09 1999 Caterpillar IT28G Loader L -10 Caterpillar 938H QC Loader L -11 Caterpillar 924H Loader L -12 1998 Caterpillar IT28G Wheel Loader, Q/C w /Bucket L -13 1998 Caterpillar IT28G Integrated Toolcarrier MA3 L -14 1997 Caterpillar 950F II Wheel Loader L -15 2011 Caterpillar 930H L -16 2011 Caterpillar 966K QC Wheel Loader L -18 Caterpillar IT62G Tool Carrier /Loader L -19 2000 Caterpillar 966 GII Wheel Loader LM -01 2006 John Deere F1435 Diesel Front Mower LM -03 Gravely Pro Turn 460 LM -04 Gravely Pro Ride 210 LT -01 2000 Ford F -750XL CrewCab Fuel /Lube Truck LT -02 1989 Kenworth T400 TA Fuel /Lube Truck LT -03 1997 Peterbilt 357.00 T/A Fuel & Lube Truck LT -04 2007 Peterbilt 335 Lube Truck M -03 1998 Caterpillar 140H Blade M -04 2008 Caterpillar 140M Blade M -06 2008 Caterpillar 140M Blade M -07 Caterpillar 140M Blade M -09 2012 Caterpillar 140M Blade PC -01 2014 HEM MP 2500 w /Poly Pads PC -02 1989 Gomaco 9500 Concrete Placer PCP -01 1998 VH 8yd Concrete Plant, Stacker 1 &2, Mixer Drum, Fly Ash Bin, Office Trailer PT -05 2003 Ford F250 4x4 Pickup (Manuel Rivera) PT -13 1999 Ford F350 Crew Cab 4X4 Pickup(Aubrey) PT -14 2009 Ford F150 4x4 Pickup (Shop) PT -19 2009 IFord IF450 Crew Cab 4x4 w/11' Gooseneck Platform (John Roby) PT -20 12001 Ford IF550 Mechanic Truck w /Crane (Gilbert Valderas) PT -27 12004 lInternational 14300.00 Flatbed (Rodolfo DeLeon) PT -28 2000 Ford F650 Flatbed (Ruperto Chihuahua) PT -29 2004 Chevy Suburban (Black Betty) PT -32 2011 Ford F350 Crew Cab XL 4WD Pickup (Chance Haynie) PT -36 2009 GMC Yukon PT -37 12003 Ford F250 Crew Cab Pickup (Hugh) PT -39 2012 Ford F350 Crew Cab Pickup (Jesus Rosales) PT -40 1999 Ford F250 Super Duty 4x4 Extended Cab Service Truck (Marty Moore /Matthew Alvarac PT -42 2003 Ford F650 Crew Cab Flatbed (Rafael Plascencia /Alberto Vazquez) PT -43 2003 Chevy Suburban 3/4 Ton (Survey) Joel Perez PT -44 2012 For 17550 Super Cab Service Truck w /Crane (Gilbert Bocanegra) PT -45 2008 Ford F350 Crew Cab Pickup (Jaen Pecina) PT -47 2001 Ford F650 XL Super Duty S/A Service Truck w/ Crane (Russel Hild) PT -49 1999 Chevy 3/4 Ton (PJ) PT -50 2006 Ford F150 Lariat Crew Cab Pickup (Robert Estrada) PT -51 2012 Ford F350 Lariat Crew Cab 4WD LWB w /Up Fit Pickup (Hugh) PT -53 2010 Ford F150 Super Crew Lariat 4WD (Jose Saldivar) PT -56 2000 Ford F550 Super Duty 4x4 Cab & Chassis (Welder Rig) Dean PT -57 2002 GMC Yukon XL 4x4 (Hugh) PT -59 2012 Ford F550 Super Cab 4WD w /Crane (Chris Cantu) PT -61 2012 Ford F350 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (John Anderssen) PT -62 2012 Ford F350 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (Robert Neutze) PT -63 2012 For F350 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (Alfred Ortegon) PT -64 2010 Ford F350 Crew Cab Pickup (Jose Campos Sr.) PT -65 2013 Ford Escape 4DR S (Cindy Gregory) PT -66 2013 Ford Escape 4DR S (Toni Bibb) PT -67 2003 Ford 17550 XL Super Duty Flatbed PT -68 2013 Ford Expedition XLT 2WD (Pat Debner) PT -71 1995 International 4700 S/A Flatbed Truck PT -72 2002 Ford F550 XLT Super Duty 4x4 Service Truck(Alex Ramirez) PT -73 2003 Ford F250 XL Super Duty Extended Cab(Rust Bucket) PT -74 2001 Ford F550 XL Super Duty 4x4 Flatbed Truck (Octaviano Lozano) PT -76 2009 Ford F350 F350 Service Truck (Alfred Ortegon) PT -77 2013 Ford F450 F450 Crew Cab 4X4 w /Skirted Gooseneck Bed (Leroy Smythe) PT -81 2006 GMC 7500 Topkick Flatbed PT -82 2001 Ford F650 Jose Campos PT -83 1994 GMC Flatbed Concrete Saw Truck PT -85 2013 Ford F150 Super Crew Lariat 4WD (Brandon Ritchey) PT -86 2002 Ford Excursion PT -87 2008 Ford F350 PT -88 1997 Freightliner FL70 S/A Flatbed Truck PT -89 2014 GMC Yukon Denali PT -90 2014 Ford F350 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (Rafael Plascencia) PT -91 2001 Ford F550 Super Duty S/A Flatbed Truck (Jorge Briones) PT -92 2015 Ford F750 Super Cab 4WD WDW /14' Knapheide Crane Svc Body w /Crane (J Bachle) PT -93 2014 Ford F150 4X4 Crew Cab (Juan Ortiz) PT -94 2014 Ford F150 XLT 4X4 Crew Cab (Luis Cantu) PT -95 2014 Ford F150 XLT 4X4 Crew Cab (Marty Moore) PT -96 2015 GMC Yukon Denali PT -97 2015 Ford F250 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (Rudy Deleon) PT -98 2015 Ford F250 Crew Cab XL 4WD LWB (Rafael Rodriguez) PT -99 2014 Ford F150 XL Crew Cab LWB (Jose Corona) PT -100 2014 Ford F150 XL Crew Cab LWB (Jorge Vazquez) PT -101 2015 Ford F250 XLT 4X4 Crew Cab (Gabriel Romero) PT -102 2014 Ford F150 XLT Crew Cab LWB PT -103 2014 Ford Escape (Aurora Dorado) PT -104 2014 Peterbilt 337 Mechanics Truck w /Knapheide Svc Body w /Crane & Air Comp (Matt Fox) PT -105 12013 Ford Expedition Expedition EL(Stephanie Stewart) PT -106 2015 Ford F -150 XLT Crew Cab (Mario Valdez) PT -107 2015 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab ST 4WD w /Diesel (David Nesbitt) PT -108 2015 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab ST 4WD w /Diesel (Barry Tomlinson) PT -109 2015 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab ST 4WD w /Diesel (Martin Silva) PT -110 2015 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Josh Surface) PT -111 2015 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel PT -112 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Antonio Nino) PT -113 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel PT -114 2007 Ford F350 Crew Cab Diesel 4WD PT -115 2005 Ford F650 Flatbed PT -116 2007 Ford F650 Flatbed (Antonio Nino) PT -117 2006 Ford F650 Flatbed (Julio Carrizales) PT -118 2007 Ford F650 Flatbed (D Rocha) PT -119 1998 Ford F800 Flatbed (was WT -04) PT -120 2006 Kenworth T300 Service /Mechanic Truck (Carl Antil) PT -121 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Santos Lozano) PT -122 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Jim Price) PT -123 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Rene Perez) PT -124 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (David Long) PT -125 2016 Dodge 1500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (Hugh) PT -126 2017 Dodge Ram 3500 Crew Cab 4WD Diesel (PJ) PT -127 2017 Dodge Ram 3500 Crew Cab Chassis 4WD PT -128 2017 Dodge Ram 2500 Crew Cab /Mega 4WD- Tim PT -129 2017 Dodge Ram 5500 Crew Cab Chassis 4WD Mechanic Truck- PT -60 Bed PW -02 2004 Top Hat Trailer Mighty M Pressure Washer w/ trailer (dual axle) PW -03 2008 Top Hat Trailer Mighty M Pressure Washer w/ trailer (single axle) PW -05 2011 Top Hat Trailer Mighty M Pressure Washer w/ trailer (single axle) PW -06 2013 Landa Pressure Washer w/16' Trailer PW -07 2012 Mi -T -M HS- 3505 -1MGH Pressure Washer /Trailer PW -08 2011 Mi -T -M Pressure washer /Trailer R -01 Ingersoll Rand Vibra- Roller 84" Drum R -06 2013 lCaterpillar PS150C Pneumatic Roller R -07 Caterpillar CS56 Flat Wheel R -08 2005 Caterpillar CS -563E Vibratory Single Drum Compactor R -09 2005 Ingersoll Rand SD -10OF TF Vibratory Single Drum Compactor R -10 2001 Ingersoll Rand PT -125R Pneumatic Compactor R -11 1994 lCaterpillar 815B Compactor R -12 J2011 2012 Caterpillar CP56B Vibratory Compactor R -13 lCaterpillar PS360C Pnuematic Compactor R -14 2006 Caterpillar CS -563E Vibratory Single Drum Compactor R -15 2005 Caterpillar CP -563E RC -01 2013 Rotobec VF23 Crusher Jaws for Excavator RC -02 2013 Conc Crusher Q JHTJAW Rock Crusher RT -01 Caterpillar 725 25 Ton Articulated Dump Truck RT -02 Caterpillar 725 25 Ton Articulated Dump Truck RT -03 Caterpillar 725 25 Ton Articulated Dump Truck RT -04 Caterpillar 725 25 Ton Articulated Dump Truck RT -06 Caterpillar 725 25 Ton Articulated Dump Truck RTS -01 Robotic UTS System J Long /M -07 RTS -02 Tremble TSC3 SPS930 J Long - Carry RTS -03 Tremble TSC3 SPS930 Jonathon /M -08 RTS -04 ITremble ATS SPS930 5 -06 Caterpillar 621B Motor Scraper 5 -07 Caterpillar 621B Motor Scraper 5 -08 Caterpillar 621B Motor Scraper 5 -09 Caterpillar 621B Motor Scraper S -10 lCaterpillar 621B Motor Scraper 5 -11 Caterpillar 621B Motor Scraper SC -01 516 Spyder Screen SE -01 Hiway Joint Silicone Extruder 55:1 5E -02 Hiway Joint Silicone Extruder King 50:1 SL -05 2006 lCaterpillar 248B Skid Steer SL -08 2007 Caterpillar 272C Skid Steer SL -09 2006 Caterpillar 262B Skid Steer SL -10 2013 Caterpillar 252B3 Skid Steer SL -11 2016 Caterpillar 289D Skid Steer SL -12 2016 lCaterpillar 289D Skid Steer SS -01 2002 Bomag MPH454R ST -01 Stockpile Stacker ST -02 Radial Stacker T -01 2013 Tank - Water WOO MPT12 Above Ground Water Tank TD -01 2008 Top Hat GNK TA Dump Trailer TF -01 2011 Big Dawg PF19 -22 Flush and Fluid Exchange Syste, TL -01 1998 Caterpillar 963B Track Loader TL -02 2001 Caterpillar 973C Track Loader TL -04 2003 ICaterpillar 973C Crawler Loader TR -03 Bomag BMP8500 Walk Behind Pad Roller TR -04 Bomag BMP8500 Walk Behind Pad Roller TT -01 2008 Cargo Mate BMP Cargo Trailer (Albert) TT -02 2008 Cargo Mate 16' Cargo Trailer (Excavation) TT -03 12007 Cargo Mate 14' Cargo Trailer (Francisco) TT -04 2009 Cargo Mate Cargo Trailer (T.Gunn) TT -05 2007 Haul Rits Box Trailer TT -06 1981 Theurer RAC40 -102TW Refrigerated Trailer TT -07 2001 lCargo Mate Box Trailer Twin Axle TT -08 11991 lWells Cargo IS/A Box Trailer TwinAxle VT -01 12000 lInternational 4700 Truck w/1999 Tymco 6000 BAH Sweeper /Vaccum VT -02 1994 Freightliner FL70 S/A Truck w /Mobile Sweeper VT -03 2002 International Tymco 600 BAH Sweeper VT -04 2014 Schwarze A7 Tornado Rear Dump Street Sweeper VT -05 2014 Freightliner Schwarze A7 Tornado Street Sweeper W -01 12013 Homemade Gooseneck Welding Trailer W -02 2008 Miller BC25ONT Bobcat Welder W -03 2004 Miller 300 Pro Welder W -04 2004 Miller 402D Big Blue Welder W -05 2004 Miller 402D Big Blue Welder W -06 Lincoln Welder W -07 2011 Lincoln Vantage 300 Welder W -08 2011 Lincoln Vantage 300 Welder WB -01 Allen 27.5' Manual Workbridge 12 WB -02 Allen APWB1800 30' Powered Workbridge WB -03 2013 HEM TC1200 HEM Texture Cure 1200 WB -04 2001 Gomaco C -450 Finisher WP -01 Gorman T6A60S Rupp Pump w /John Deere 4045T Diesel Engine WR -01 21' Hydraulic Wheel Rake w /Hyd Cylinder & Hoses WT -05 2007 Ford F750 Water Truck WT -06 2004 Ford F650 XL Super Duty S/A Water Truck WT -07 2007 Ford F750 XLD 2WD Water Truck WT -08 2006 Ford F750 XLD 2WD Water Truck WT -10 2000 Ford F750 was PT -26 WT -11 2007 Peterbilt 335 4000 Gallon Water Truck WW -02 lCaterpillar 161SC lWater Wagon IM e ! ! i t I tti ! . U,,00n acceZanee and award of tile contract to the undersip-ned L-, the Owner, the undersi ned shall execute standard ! Documents and make Performance Payment Bonds i amount full { calendar days after the award of t compliance with the terms and provisions of the contract, to insure and guarantee the work until final completion and acceptance, and the guarantee period stipulated, and to guarantee payment of all lawful claims for r! it is anticipated that the Owner will provide written Authorization to Proceed within 10 days after the award *f 1" CoTdr.2d. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TO. Prospective Bidders Be advised that this Addendum No.l affects the following changes in the Contract Documents i . > 0 ITATM . The following forms have been revised: 1. Request for Competitive Sealed Proposals (RFCSP) A. Bid opening date adjusted to July 18, 2017 B. Contract time for substantial completion set for 90 calendar days C. Estimated construction budget adjusted to account for additional items specified within} Addendum 2, Price Proposal Forth A. Added TxDOT Bid Item 402 -6001 Trench Excavation Protection i. 'TXDOT Specification 402 Trench Excavation Protection shall govern for this item 3. Standard Form Agreement A. Contract time for substantial completion set for 90 calendar days 4. Plan Sheet 6 — Estimated Quantities A. TxDOT Item 402 Trench Excavation Protection has been added If. The following forces have been added: 1. Special Provision to Schertz Spec 2319 Borrow A. Information for Borrow (Pavement) included to Spec 2, Special Prevision to Schertz Spec 2751 Concrete Pavement A. Requirements for Acid Insoluble Sand included 3. Pre - Submittal Sign In Sheet III. General Notes: 1. The intent of this project is to keep the crossing of Lower Seguin Road at Cibolo as a low water crossing. 2. It is the Contractor's responsibility to appropriately phase construction to allow for continuous flow of Cibolo Creek while improvements are underway. The Contractor shall submit a phasing /sequencing plan as a submittal to the City for review prior to beginning work on the project. 3. The Contractor will not receive additional compensation for any additional dewatering required, loss of material or delays encountered in the event runoff from Cibolo Creek enters the dewatered construction area. IV. Responses to Pre - Submittal Questions: Q 1. Do you have a bid list available? A 1. There is no City of Schertz record which matches this request. If by this question you mean to ask if the City has a predetermined list of bidders for this project, no. If you are asking for a list of attendees which attended the pre - submittal conference, one will be posted with Addendum 1. If you are asking for a list of respondents, the responses are not yet due and the information does not yet exist. A list of bid items can be found with this addendum. Q2. What is the expected start of construction date for this project? A2. The Contractor awarded the project should expect to be given a notice to proceed with their schedule within 2 business days after an agreement is executed. Q3. What is the contract time for this project? There are conflicting statements of 90 days and 120 days in the bid proposal. A3. Contract time for substantial completion shall be 90 calendar days. Final completion to include completion of punch list items shall be 30 calendar days from day substantial completion is called. Q4. Can we get an excel version of the bid tab in lieu of the PDF? A4. An electronic version of the bid item list will be uploaded to project purchase website. Q5. Is a geotechnical report available? A5. The geotechnical report will be uploaded to project purchase website. Q6. Can we be provided Schertz Spec 2319 for the borrow material beneath the concrete riprap according to the typical section? A6. Yes. Special Provision to Schertz Spec 2319 for the borrow material beneath the concrete riprap is included with Addendum 1. Q7. Will the city provide the project signs and the contractor maintains them? Or does the contractor need to construct the signage? AT The City will build and provide the project signs, and the Contractor shall maintain them for duration of the project. Q8. Please clarify the performance grade of the Ty.B Asphalt. A8. Performance grade of the Type B asphalt shall be 64 -22. Q9. Can the asphalt be blade -laid or does it need to be installed with a paver? A9. Asphalt shall be installed with a paver. Q 10. Does the concrete for the CRCP Pavement need to contain acid insoluble sand in its mix design? A10. Yes. Class P Concrete Pavement specified for this project shall include acid insoluble sand. Special Provision to Spec 2751 is provided with Addendum 1 for clarity purposes. Q11. Will builders risk insurance be required of the awarded contractor? A11. Builders risk will be waived for this project. Q 12, Are prevailing wages required for this project? At 2. Yes, per section 6.2.2 of the General Conditions document found on page GC-15, prevailing wages are required. General Decision Number: TX170016 01/06/2017 TX16 is attached to the solicitation documents beginning on Page PWR -I -: Q 13 . Will certified payroll be required? A13. Contractor may submit Certified Payrolls utilizing forth WH347 or an equivalent at project closeout. Submittal of payroll documents to the City on a weekly basis is not required. Q 14. Is there a water source available for the temporary watering of the hydro mulch until revegetation has been established? A14. Contractor shall provide water source for the temporary watering of the hydro mulch. Contractor can locate nearby fire hydrant from City of Schertz or Cibolo and obtain water through a commercial meter, or supply water from a different location. Q 15. Can we be provided spec 01740 per the general notes for site restoration? At 5. Site restoration spec 01740, along with all other applicable City of Schertz governing specifications, can be found on City of Schertz Department of Engineering website listed under Public Works Technical Specifications. Q16. Would it be possible to postpone the opening, the current date falls during the TxDot monthly highway letting? At 6. Bid opening is scheduled for July 18, 2017. Q17. What are the minimum requirements and /or guidelines for dewatering other than disturbing no more than 0.1 acre and maintaining a 105cfs flow? is any dewatering options not allowed? Is there a preferred method? At 7. As specified in the plans, the contractor shall; adhere to TxDOT specification, 400 Excavation and Backfill for Structures, dewatering and cofferdam sections, with the specific requirements of not disturbing more than 0.1 acres outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and maintaining an existing flow of 105 cfs. It is up to the contractor to develop a plan, designed and signed /sealed by a licensed professional engineer in the state of Texas, that will allow these requirements to be met and also construct the project. Q18. Can the dewatering Man be stamp by an in House engineer or is required to go through an engineering firm specializing in dewatering? A18. The Contractor shall provide a plan that is designed and signed /sealed by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Texas. There is no preference whether the Engineer is in house, or through an outside engineering firm. The Contractor assumes full liability and risks !associated with the designed system. Q 19. There appears to be a very goad traffic control plan included in the plans, I assume the note #39 on sheet 4 does not apply to this project? A19. The note will apply in the event the Contractor wishes to deviate from the provide Traffic Control Plan. Q20. Does the Guadalupe County Haul off service include existing trash dumped on site (tires, tree stumps and other waste)? Will the county haul the trees that are to be removed as well? A20. Guadalupe County shall provide hauloff services for demolition associated with this project. All material hauled in and out of the project site shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Q21. When is the expected start date? A21. The selected contract is scheduled to go for Council approval within 2 weeks of contractor selection, and the Contractor is expected to begin mobilizing equipment and barricades within 7 business days of the Notice to Proceed. The Notice to Proceed will be issued immediately after Council approval. Anticipated start date is expected to be around August 28, 2017, if not sooner. Q22. Is the project 120 calendar days or 90 calendar days? A22. Contract time for substantial completion shall be 90 calendar days. Final completion to include completion of punch list items shall be 30 calendar days from day substantial completion is called; Q23. Is the 85% vegetation establishment included in the 120/94 calendar days to complete the project? A23. Site restoration (hydro mulch and vegetation) must be placed before substantial completion will be called (90 calendar days), Contractor can continue to water during the final completion phase and afterwards to provide 85% vegetation requirements. 25. Will safety pipe runners be required on the culvert sloped ends? A25. No, safety pipe runners will not be required for the pavement sloped ends. r •a +• : e t Each bidder is requested to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum No. i by his /her signature affixed hereto and to file it with and attached to his/her bid. The undersigned acknowledges receipt of this Addendum No. 1, amd' th did submitted herewith is in accordance with the information and stipulations se o . Typed or Printed Name �' a �'ee a •. e � Wo',� r, '• . r r ' i t KNOW ALL Iv[EN BY`TIiESE PRESENTS, WHEREAS, the principal his subinitted a bid for Lower Seguin Road at C bolo Reconstruction, Project No, 2017 -5641 NO'"'; THEREFORE, if the Obligec shill accept the bid of the Principal and the Principal shall enter into a contract with the Obligec in accordance wilh the lenns ol'such bid and give such bond or bonds as in<ay be spccil cd ill the bidding or conlmct documents with good and sufficient surety for the failhful peribnnance of such contract and for tlrc prompt pavnicni of labor and inaterial furnished in the prosecution thereof, or in the event of tile failure of the Ptinci}ml to enter into such umlrscl and give such bond or bonds, if the Principal shall pay to the Obligcc the difference not to exceed the penalty hereof between the amount specified in said bid and such large' amount for which the Obligee may in goad faith ctmtr'cl witha'nother party to perform the work covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and void, ollien ise Lo reniainin full force and effect: Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Colonial Arnoitcan Casual!y Casual! and Surety Company 13v Connie Davis (SEAL) N'rtfrra :s" David S. Ballcw attvrnrrv- in °h'r,ct B10700011, NO101 c ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MIEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, the COLONIAL AMtERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Maryland, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND a corporation of the State of Maryland (herein collectively called the "Companies"), by MICHAEL BOND, Vice President, in pursuance of authority granted by Article V. Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies, which are set forth on the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in full force and effect on the date hereof, do hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint David S. BALLEW, of Austin, Texas, its true and lawful agent and Attorney -in -Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for, and on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed: any and all bonds and undertakings, EXCEPT bonds on behalf of Independent Executors, Community Survivors and Community Guardians. and the execution of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Companies, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been duly executed and acknoNvlcdged by the regularly elected officers of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at its office in New York, New York., the regularly elected officers of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., and the regularly elected officers of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at its office in Owings Mills, Maryland., in their own proper persons. The said Vice President does hereby certify that the extract set forth on the reverse side hereof is a true copy of Article V, Section 8, of the By -Laws of said Companies.. and is now in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Vice - President has hereunto subscribed his/her names and affixed the Corporate Seals of the said ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, COLONIAL A- MERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY CONIPANY, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this 13th day of January, A.D. 2016. ATTEST: ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND �h¢ wq OrJOj Gly+ -tNS(r ryy trw • 3 11B D Secretary Vice President Eric D. Barnes Michael Bone! State of Maryland County of Baltimore On this 13th day of January, A.D. 2016, before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland. duly commissioned and qualified, MICHAEL BOND, Vice President, and ERIC 1). BARNES, Secretary, of the Companies, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he/she is the said officer of the Company aforesaid. and that the seals affixed to the preceding instrument are the Corporate Seals of said Companies. and that the said Corporate Seals and the signature as such officer were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporations. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and year first above written. POA -F 168 -0067 . `uuuU � tt iry�rrr 12Ci tr,v,`t4 i Maria D. Adantski, Notary Public My Commission Expires: July 8, 2019 POA -F 168 -0067 EXTRACT FROM BY -LAWS OF THE COMPANIES "Article V. Section 8, Attorneys -in -Fact. The Chief Executive Officer, the President, or any Executive Vice President or Vice President may, by written instrument under the attested corporate seal, appoint attomeys -in -fact with authority to execute bonds, policies, recognizances, stipulations, undertakings, or other like instruments on behalf of the Company, and may authorize any officer or any such attorney -in -fact to affix the corporate seal thereto; and may with or without cause modify of revoke any such appointment or authority at any time." CERTIFICATE 1, the undersigned, Vice President of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney is still in full force and effect on the date of this certificate; and I do further certify that Article V, Section 8. of the By -Laws of the Companies is still in force. This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 15th day of December 1998. RESOLVED: "That the signature of the President or a Vice President and the attesting signature of a Secretary or an Assistant Secretary and the Seal of the Company may he affixed by facsimile on any Power of Attorney ... Any such Power or any certificate thereof bearing such facsimile signature and seal shall be valid and binding on the Company." This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by facsimile tinder and by authority of the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 5th day of May, 1994, and the following resolution of the Board of Directors of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on the 10th day of May, 1990. RESOLVED: "That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced seal of the company and facsimile or mechanically reproduced signature of any Vice- President, Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Company, whether made heretofore or hereafter, wherever appearing upon a certified copy of any power of attorney issued by the Company, shall be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seals of the said Companies, this 13 t4ay of July 120-17 • { 2t� fi N��I�ila •wr tt« _(k Ion sail. { Gerald F. Haley, Vice President TO REPORT A CLAIM WITH REGARD TO A SURETY BOND, PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION TO: Zurich American Insurance Co. Attn: Surety Claims 1299 Zurich Way Schaumburg; IL 60196 -1056 CITY OF SCHERTZ LOWER SEGUIN ROAD AT CIBOLO RECONSTRUCTION #ST -C -1 .705 J3 Company, LLC E -Z Bel Construction, LLC. Hill Country Bridge, Inc. J Stewart Construction, LLC. Meyers Concrete Construction, LP. Pronto Sandblasting & Coating & Oil Field Services Co. Inc. Criteria_ Item Description Maximum Points A) Qualifications of Respondent Firm and Experience on Similar Projects 1.5 11 9 1.4 0 9 6 B) Experience on Public Projects 10 10 10 10 0 7 10 C) Available Resources to Complete Project 1.5 15 13 0 0 9 0 D) Corporate history and stability 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 E) Overall Responsiveness to the RFP 5 5 5 3 0 5 1. F) References 5 5 5 5 0 5 4 G) Cost Score 45 45.00 33.85 31.58 40.46 27.30 32.14 TOTAL SCORE 100 96.00 80.85 63.58 40.46 67.30 53.14 Evaluator's Key Qualifications of Respondent Firm and Experience on Similar Projects Qualifications of firm in executing similar projects utilizing the Competitive Sealed Proposal or other procurement methods and qualifications related to collaborating with design partners in constructability and Value Analysis in this delivery method (emphasis on last five (5) years). As well as related municipal project experience, including completed and ongoing projects of the firm(s) and individuals who would be assigned to this Project. Experience on Public Projects Related project experience with the other public owners including municipalities, school districts, and other local governmental entities, as well as experience with local subcontractors, with particular attention to individuals who would be assigned to this Project. Available Resources to Complete Project This criterion would include personnel, resources and methodologies commonly used by your firm that may be applicable to the project categories. Corporate history and stability This criterion includes the historical stability of the Respondent, its corporate structure and longevity, its history involving litigation or arbitration with owners and subcontractors, and a statement of any liquidated damages that have previously been withheld by public owner clients of the Respondent on projects in the last five (5) years. Overall Responsiveness to the RFP No Additional Instruction References No Additional Instruction Verified Tabulation J3 Company, LLC E -Z Bel Construction, LLC. Hill Country Bridge, Inc. J Stewart Construction, LLC. Meyers Concrete Construction, LP. 1562.0 TREE PROTECTION LF 1 296 $ 4.00 $ 1,184.00 $ 10.00 $ 2,960.00 $ 8.40 $ 2,486.401 $ 3.40 $ 1,006.40 1570.0 STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $ 27,500.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 155,600.00 $ 155,600.00 $ 20,915.00 $ 20,915.00 1580.0 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS EA 2 $ 450.00 $ 900.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 725.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 937.50 $ 1,875.00 2221.1 REMOVING EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND STRUCTURES (ASPHALT) SY 222 $ 10.00 $ 2,220.00 $ 30.00 $ 6,660.00 $ 25.00 $ 5,550.00 $ 9.60 $ 2,131.20 2221.2 REMOVING EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND STRUCTURES (CONCRETE) SY 172 $ 40.00 $ 6,880.00 $ 60.00 $ 10,320.00 $ 53.00 $ 9,116.00 $ 19.20 $ 3,302.40 2314.0 CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY 60 $ 40.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 170.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 50.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 11.00 $ 660.00 2315.0 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 90 $ 50.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 60.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 47.00 $ 4,230.00 $ 11.00 $ 990.00 2319.0 BORROW CY 100 $ 20.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 160.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 63.35 $ 6,335.00 $ 6.50 $ 650.00 2319.1 BORROW (PAVEMENT) CY 60 $ 70.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 63.35 $ 3,801.00 $ 26.90 $ 1,614.00 2741.0 HOT MIX ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT, TY B (3 -INCH COMP. DEPTH) TON 70 $ 150.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 150.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 195.00 $ 13,650.00 $ 272.30 $ 19,061.00 2751.0 CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCP) (9 -INCH THICK) SY 423 $ 125.00 $ 52,875.00 $ 105.00 $ 44,415.00 $ 79.40 $ 33,586.20 $ 67.50 $ 28,552.50 2764.0 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS (TY II -A -A) EA 10 $ 10.00 $ 100.00 $ 10.00 $ 100.00 $ 12.00 $ 120.00 $ 12.50 $ 125.00 2771.1 REINFORCED CONCRETE CURB (MONOLITHIC) LF 266 $ 25.00 $ 6.650.00 $ 30.00 $ 7.980.00 $ 9.00 $ 2.394.00 $ 9.40 $ 2.500.40 Schertz Bid Items Total 432 -6003 CONCRETE RIP -RAP (6 -INCH THICK) 432 -6031 RIPRAP (STONE PROTECTION) (12 IN) 462 -6004 CONC BOX CULVERT (4 FT X 3 FT) 466 -6166 WINGWALL (FW - S) (HW = 5 FT) 666 -6345 4 -INCH WIDE YELLOW STRIPING 6001 -6001 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN TXDOT Bid Items Total Total of Base Bid & Alternate 1 CY 66 CY 100 LF 146 EA 2 LF 324 $ 149,185.00 550.00 $ 36,300.00 90.00 $ 9,000.00 350.00 $ 51,100.00 000.00 $ 34,000.00 4.00 $ 1,296.00 160.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 149,304.00 450.00 $ 29,700.00 160.00 $ 16,000.00 800.00 $ 116,800.00 500.00 $ 25,000.00 2.50 $ 810.00 140.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 213,576.00 470.00 $ 31,020.00 154.00 $ 15,400.00 33425 $ 48,800.50 000.00 $ 46,000.00 2.50 $ 810.00 190.00 $ 2,660.00 $ 170,275.50 593.80 $ 39,190.80 73.10 $ 7,310.00 997.70 $ 145,664.20 121.30 $ 28,242.60 420 $ 1,360.80 174.80 $ 2,447.20 $ 231,973.48 3.00 $ 888.00 378.00 $ 10,378.00 259.00 $ 2,518.00 22.00 $ 4,884.00 93.00 $ 15,996.00 59.00 $ 3,540.00 55.00 $ 4,950.00 107.00 $ 10,700.00 129.00 $ 7,740.00 245.00 $ 17,150.00 183.00 $ 77,409.00 22.00 $ 220.00 25.00 $ 6.650.00 621.00 $ 40,986.00 189.00 $ 18,900.00 408.00 $ 59,568.00 871.00 $ 29,742.00 2.00 $ 648.00 156.88 $ 2,196.32 $ 287,423.82 Agenda No. 14 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: August 22, 2017 Department: Subject: Police /Finance Ordinance No. 17 -T -29 - An ordinance by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas authorizing an amendment to the FY 2016 -17 General Fund to create and fund four additional Crossing Guard positions, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; and providing an effective date; First Reading With Ordinance 16 -T -29 the City Council of the City of Schertz approved the annual budget for FY 2016 -17. Staff is proposing to fund four additional Crossing Guards. The City currently has twelve regular crossing guard positions. Staff has determined that it would be beneficial to student safety to add additional crossing guard positions around Clemens High School to assist at the marked crossings and with student parking, especially during this time of major construction. These positions are also requested in the FY 201.7 -1.8 Budget, however due to the school year starting in August and the City's fiscal year starting in October, staff is requesting these positions now. These positions are funded out of the Crossing Guard Fees the City receives from each of the counties and the Child Safety Fee collected in the Schertz Municipal Court. Historically these revenues averaged $91,500 and with the new crossing guards the annual crossing guard expense is estimated at $88,100. There is enough recurring restricted revenue to cover the additional crossing guards annually. Goal The goal is to hire 4 crossing guards to meet the needs of the upcoming school year. Community Benefit These four additional positions will allow the City to better protect school children in the community. Summary of Recommended Action Approval of Ordinance 17 -T -29 approving hiring of four crossing guards. FISCAL IMPACT No budget adjustment is required and there are enough restricted funds for crossing guards to pay for the additional crossing guards. Approval of First reading Ordinance No. 17 -T -29 Ir W 1/�GIU 1 DILIY Ordinance No. 17 -T -29 ORDINANCE NO. 17 -T -29 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2016 -17 GENERAL FUND TO CREATE AND FUND FOUR ADDITIONAL CROSSING GUARD POSITIONS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 1.6 -T -29, the City of Schertz (the "City ") adopted the budget for the City for the fiscal year 2016 -2017 (the "Budge ), which provides funding for the City's operations throughout the 2016 -201.7 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City needs to authorize four additional crossing guard positions; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council of the City approve the additional positions; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the creation and funding for the four crossing guard positions, as more fully set forth in this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: Section 1. The City shall adjust create and fund four additional crossing guard positions. 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 upon the date of final adoption hereof and any publication required by law. PASSED ON FIRST READING, the 22nd day of August, 2017. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, the 29th day of August, 2017. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) 50558021.1 - 2 -