Loading...
03-13-2018 Agenda with backupMEETING AGENDA City Council REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL March 13, 2018 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 Larson) Presentation Presentation regarding the Planning Excellence Award. (B. James /L. Wood) Plaque presentation regarding Project Warrior. (Councilmember Gutierrez /Mayor) Employee Recognition • Business Office - Stacey Babb — Utility Billing Clerk • Library — Pamela Kurczewski — PT Library Circulation Clerk • Police — Diane Deluca & Brandi Brinkman — Communication Officers • Fleet and Facilities Services — Wyatt "Todd" Buckingham — Facilities Manager and Eric Brown — Fleet Mechanic City Events and Announcements • Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. James /D. Wait /S. Gonzalez) • Announcements and recognitions by the Acting City Manager (B. James) • Announcements and recognitions by the Mayor (M. Carpenter) 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. 03 -13 -2018 Council Agenda All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any individual member thereof.' Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks while addressing the Council may be requested to leave the meeting. Discussion by the Council of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and /or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Dearing of `Residents portion of'the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. Workshops • Resolution 18 -R -26- CAFR FY2016 -17 - Presentation and consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. (B. James /J. Walters /D. Fraser) • Continuation of the discussion regarding Phase II Parks fees. (.B. James /L. Shrum) Consent Agenda Items The Consent Agenda is considered self - explanatory and will be enacted by the Council with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are removed from the Consent Agenda upon the request of the Mayor or a Councilmember. 1. Minutes — Consideration and /or action regarding the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 2018. (B. Dennis) 2. Ordinance No. 18 -S -10 — Consideration and /or action on a request to rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land from Single - Family Residential. District (.R -1) to Office and Professional District (OP) located approximately 220 feet southeast of the intersection of E. Live Oak Road and FM 3009. Final Reading (B. James /L. Wood/E. Grobe) 3. Ordinance No. 18 -T -11 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance authorizing an adjustment to transfer funds for the Operations Grant in connection with the Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company Performance Agreement, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; and providing an effective date. Final Reading (B. James /J. Walters /K. Kinateder) 4. Boards, Commissions and Committee Member Resignations — Consideraton and/or action accepting the resignation of Mr. Ron Washington from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. (B. Dennis /Mayor /Council) 5. Resolution No. 18 -R -32 — Consideration and /or action authorizing the Acting City Manager to enter into an amended agreement with Physio - Control, Inc. for the lease - purchase of one (1) patient care monitor /defibrillator. (D. Wait /K. Long /J. Mabbitt) 6. Resolution No. 18 -R -31 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application in an amount up to $92,203.00 to 03 -13 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 2 - the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division, for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). (D. Wait/K. Long) 7. Resolution No. 18 -R -33 — Consideration and/or action appointing members to the Alamo Area Council of Governments Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (REPAC). (D. Wait/K. Long) Discussion and Action Items 8. Resolution No. 18 -R -27 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing the appointment of Mr. Charles Kelm to the Schertz- Seguin Local Government Corporation to fill the vacancy of Andrew Hunt, term to expire December 31, 2020. (D. Wait) 9. Resolution No. 18 -R -20 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute and deliver a contract with CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $629,586 related to software and implementation services for a Community Development System. (B. James /M. Clauser /B. Cox) 10. Ordinance No. 18 -M -13 — Conduct a public hearing and consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Schertz by PH adopting Chapter 78, Article VII: Roadway Capital Recovery Fees, and to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts. First Reading (B. James /K. Woodlee) 1.1. Resolution 18 -R -28 - Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution authorizing Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreements with Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District and San Antonio One and San Antonio Three Limited Partnerships for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater line along Wiederstein Road. (B. James /K. Woodlee) 12. Resolution 18 -R -29 - Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing a Water Line Easement Agreement with Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District for the use, benefit, and control of the City of Schertz for the construction and maintenance of a water line through the Samuel Clemens High School property. (B. James /K. Woodlee) 13. Resolution No. 18 -R -24 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the entering into of an Agreement with the City of Seguin and the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) regarding the sale of excess SSLGC water. (D. Wait) 1.4. Resolution No. 18 -R -30 — Consideration and/or action approving a Resolution approving a request for a Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area Grant for 533 Main Street. (B. James) 03 -13 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 3 - Roll Call Vote Confirmation Workshops 15. Discussion regarding governmental transparency. (Item requested by Councilmember Crawford) 16. Discussion regarding a proposed Ordinance authorizing a Franchise Agreement with Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative (GVEC). (D. Wait) Closed Session 17. City Council will meet in closed session under Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code, Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations; Closed Meeting. The governmental body is not required to conduct an open meeting (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect. • Project E -038 1.8. City Council will meet in closed session under section 551.074 of the Texas Government Code, Personnel Matters to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the City Manager. 1.9. City Council will meet in closed session under section 551.071 of the Texas Government Consultation with the City Attorney regarding pending or contemplated litigation: • GVSUD vs. City of Schertz • GVSUD vs Texas Public Utility Commission and the City of Schertz Reconvene into Regular Session 17a. Take any action based on discussions held in closed session under Agenda Item 17. 18a. Take any action based on discussions held in closed session under Agenda Item 1.8. 1.9a. Take any action based on discussions held in closed session under Agenda Item 19. Roll Call Vote Confirmation Requests and Announcements 20. Announcements by the Acting City Manager. 21. Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers that items be placed on a future City Council agenda. 03 -13 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 4 - 22. 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 23. Information available in City Council Packets - NO DISCUSSION TO OCCUR City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation. Adjournment • 2017 . Tax Year reimbursement per the Development Agreement with Capital Group Companies, Inc. • 2017 . Tax Year reimbursement per the Development Agreement with Caterpillar, Inc. CERTIFICATION I, BRENDA DENNIS, CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARDS ON THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH 2018 AT 4:00 P.M., WHICH IS A PLACE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES AND THAT SAID NOTICE WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. g1z�ND4 DENN1,S Orenda, Dennis, City Secreta 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 2018. 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 closed 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. Closed Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City's legal counsel and the presence of any subject in any Closed 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 03 -13 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 5 - 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 Sca0iola — Place 5 Main Street Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions - Alternate Hal. Baldwin Scholarship Committee Schertz - Seguin Local Government Corporation — Alternate Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation - Alternate Councilmember Davis— Place 1 Councilmember Gutierrez — Place 2 Audit Committee Audit Committee Schertz Housing Authority Board Investment Advisory Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Main Street Committee - Chair Councilmember Larson — Place 3 Councilmember Edwards — Place 4 Main Street Committee — Vice Chair Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Investment Advisory Committee 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 Audit Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions TIRZ II Board 03 -13 -2018 City Council Agenda Page - 6 - Workshop Item CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Finance Department Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -26 - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - CAFR Fiscal Year 2016 -17 BACKGROUND State law requires that local governments complete an annual audit by an independent licensed public accounting firm. This is the official Financial Statement - Fiscal Year 2016 -17 Comprehensive Annual. Financial. Report (CAFR) for the City of Schertz as of September 30, 2017. These statements show the financial performance and financial health of the City for the previous fiscal year. The presentation will be made by Debbie Fraser, CPA of Armstrong, Vaughan & Associates. The Audit Committee consisting of Councilmember Davis, Councilmember Gutierrez, Councilmember Kiser, Acting City Manager Brian James, and Finance Director James Walters met on March 6, 2018 . to review the audit findings and financial statement as presented by the auditor, Debbie Fraser of Armstrong, Vaughn, and Associates. Councilmember Kiser made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to accept the audit and recommend acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) by the City Council if the following items were addressed: 1. Review of Parks and Recreation Foundation financial information presented in the CAFR to represent the actual balance remaining in their bank account and fund balance. (subsequently corrected — see attached memo) 2. Correction of a rounding error on draft presented at the Audit Committee meeting in the amount of $1 on the Governmental Activities Net Position on page 16 and 21. The motion passed unanimously. The report brought forth to Council tonight has been updated with those 2 corrections. COMMUNITY BENEFIT The annual audit provides the community assurance the city is in good financial standing and operating in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles and governmental accounting standards. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 18 -R -26 regarding the Fiscal Year 2016 -17 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 18 -R -26 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Parks & Recreation Foundation Correction Memo Communication with Those Charged with Governance To the Audit Committee City of Schertz, Texas We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Schertz, as of and for the year ended September 30, 2017, and have issued our report thereon dated March 6, 2018. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit. Our Responsibility under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (and Government Auditing Standards) As communicated in our engagement letter dated September 29, 2017, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities. Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of City of Schertz solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you. Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you. Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm has complied with all relevant ethical . requirements regarding independence. 941 West Byrd Blvd., Suite 101 - Universal City, Texas 78148 Phone: 210 -658 -6229 - Fax:. 210-659-7611 of ail: info @avacpa.com - www.avac a:co Qualitative Aspects of the Entity's Significant Accounting Practices Signficant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by City of Schertz is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. There has been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies or their application during 2017. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to infonn you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Significant Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management's current judgments. The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are: • Useful lives of capital assets • Pension related liabilities, to include the mortality and investment assumptions. • Service Concession Arrangement Receivables and Liabilities • Allowance for uncollectible receivables for - Water revenues - EMS billings - Property taxes - Court fines and revenue We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimates and determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole and in relation to the applicable opinion units. Financial Statement Disclosures Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting City of Schertz's financial statements relate to: Texas Municipal Retirement System and Long -Term Liabilities. Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit We encountered no difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City of Schertz' financial statements or the auditor's report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit. Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Management has corrected all misstatements. In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures. None of the misstatements identified by us as a result of our audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole or applicable opinion units. Representations Requested from Management We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in a separate letter dated March 6, 2018. Management's Consultations with Other Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters. Other Matters As a result of our audit for the year ending September 30, 2017, we had the following suggestions: TMRS Census Data: The City's internal control policy on GASB Statement No. 68 currently does not address the review of the employee census data recorded in the TMRS employee pension records. Discussions with City personnel revealed that the City has not independently reviewed the information. The City should develop a policy and review the employee's census data periodically to ensure the pension liability estimate is accurate. Status: Management will evaluate its options and implement a new procedure within the Human. Resources department. Cash Reconciling Items: The City is carrying a significant amount of uncleared items on its bank reconciliation and has additional reconciling items from the old operating account. The volume of oustanding items each month makes it more difficult to review the bank reconciliation for errors. In addition, some of these items may need to be sent to the State as unclaimed property. Management should review cash reconciling items and send unclaimed property to the State. Status: Management has plans to review these items in the future and research the requirements for unclaimed property. Public Funds Investment Act As a part of our audit, we review the City's compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act. Our procedures determined that the City is in compliance, in all material effects, with the provisions of the Act. Other Significant Findings or Issues In the normal course of our professional association with City of Schertz, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as City of Schertz' auditors. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information (statistical section) in documents containing City of Schertz' audited financial statements does not extend beyond the financial . information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information. However, in accordance with such standards, we have read the information and considering whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, was materially inconsistent with its presentation in the financial statements. Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any infonnation which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements. Trend Analysis We have prepared the attached "Trend Analysis" as a financial planning tool for council and staff. Sound financial management dictates that a minimum fund balance be maintained that is sufficient to ensure operations will continue uninterrupted and emergencies that arise from time to time will be met. A rule of thumb for a minimum fund balance for the general fund is three to six months average operating expenditures (exclusive of capital outlay and debt service expenditures). The attachment details the trends over the last five years. This is presented for additional analysis and as a planning tool. We make no recommendation regarding the analysis of this information. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Audit Committee, City Council, and management of City of Schertz and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Armstrong, Vaughan & Associates, P.C. March 6, 2018 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TREND ANALYSIS 9/30/13 9/30/14 9/30/15 9/30/16 9/30/17 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND BALANCE - GENERAL FUND (1) $ 4,206,735 $ 5,587,262 $ 7,280,240 $ 8,509,467 $ 10,071,259 AVERAGE MONTHLY OPERATING EXPENDITURES (2) 1,570,338 1,628,274 1,683,217 1,782,957 1,979,704 GROWTH RATE PER YEAR - AVERAGE MONTHLY OPERATING EXPENDITURES 2.8% 3.7% 3.4% 5.9% 11.0% # MONTHS AVERAGE EXPENDITURES IN FUND BALANCE 2.7 3.4 4.3 4.8 5.1 GENERAL BONDED DEBT „ (NET OF DEBT SERVICE RESERVES) 61,505,769 60,770,226 56,661,294 62,397,443 66,880,1.75 RATIO OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO FUND EQUITY 1.4.6/1 1.0.9/1 7.8/1 7.3/1 6.6/1. (1) Includes unassigned fund balance only (2) Exclusive of Capital Outlay and Debt Service Expenditure CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL 11LYN:�A•i�l: OFFICIALS ISSUING REPORT Brian James Acting City Manager James Walters Director of Finance CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TABLE OF CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 17:Lf INTRODUCTORY SECTION ........................................................................... ............................... i LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................................................................................... ............................... ii CITYOFFICIALS ............................................................................................................. ............................... ix ORGANIZATIONALCHART .......................................................................................... ............................... x CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT ............................................................................ ............................... xi FINANCIAL SECTION INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ....................................................................... ............................... 2 MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .. ............................... ........ ........ ............................5 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ............... ............................... ......... ........ .. ............................... STATEMENT OF NET POSITION ................... ............................... ......... ............. ............................... STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ............ ............................... ........ ............... ............................... BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ............ ........: ........ ............ ............................... RECONCILIATION OF BALANCE SHEET ....................... ......... ........ ............. ............................... STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTALFUNDS .............................................`...................................... ............................... RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ......... ......... ......... ................................... ............................... STATEMENT OF NET POSITION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS ............................... ............................... STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES; AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS .................. ........ ........ ............................................... ............................... STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - PROPRIETARY FUNDS ................................. ............................... NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .................................................... ............................... REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ................................................. ............................... SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND .................................................. ............................... SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ............................... NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL ............................................................. ............................... SCHEDULE OF CHANGES - NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS .................... SCHEDULE OF CITY CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................ ............................... RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN - ANALYSIS OF FUNDING PROGRESS ........................ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ...................................................................... ............................... COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS - GENERAL FUND ................................ ............................... COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GENERAL FUND .......................................................................... ............................... COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ............. i 14 15 17 19 21. 22 24 25 27 28 30 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TABLE OF CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) PAGE COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ................................................ 71 COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS - DEBT SERVICE FUND ........................................................... 72 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - DEBT SERVICE FUND ................................................................................ 73 COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND .................................................. 74 COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND ............................................................................................ 75 COMBINING BALANCE SHEET - NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS .................................... 76 COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES — NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS .................................................................... 78 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANZCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL - HOTEL OCCUPANCY FUND ....................................................................................... 80 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - PARK FUND .................................................................................................. 81 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - TREE MITIGATION FUND ......................................................................... 82 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - TREASURY FORFEITURES FUND ............................................................ 83 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - JUSTICE FORFEITURES FUND ................................................................. 84 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - STATE FORFEITURES FUND .................................................................... 85 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD .................................................................. 86 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - HISTORICAL COMMITTEE FUND ............................................................ 87 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET TO ACTUAL - PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION ............................................ 88 STATISTICAL SECTION NET POSITION, BY COMPONENT .......................................................................................................... 90 CHANGEIN NET POSITION ..................................................................................................................... 92 FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ................................................................................... 96 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ........................................................... 98 TAX REVENUE BY SOURCE — GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS .............................................................. 100 TOTAL WATER AND SEWER CONSUMPTION AND RATES ............................... ............................101 PRINCIPAL WATER AND SEWER CONSUMERS ............................................................................... 102 ASSESSED VALUE AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY ..................103 DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATES ................................................................... 104 PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS ................................................................................................. 105 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS .................................................................................. 106 TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUE ............................................................................................................... 107 RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE ..................................................................................... 108 ii CITY OF SC0FD{TZ,TEXA8 TABLE 0PCONTENTS SEPTEMBER 3O,2017 STATISTICAL SECTION (Continued) RATIOS {lp GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING .................................................................. ||0 DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT ........................................... ||| DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION ------------------------------------ll2 PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE ........................................................................................................ ||3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ................................................................................ ||4 TOP TEN PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS --------------------. ---..--..l]5 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES BY ------.||6 OPERATING INDICATORS Bl' ||7 REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GO VERNMENTA UDITING STANDARDS ...................... 122 di INTRODUCTORY SECTION iv March 6, 2018 To the Honorable Mayor, City Council, and the Citizens of City of Schertz: State law requires that local governments publish a complete set of financial statements presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP) and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in the United States of America by a firm of licensed certified public accountants. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the comprehensive annual financial report of the City of Schertz for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. This report consists of management's representations concerning the Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the comp information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis management of the City of Schertz has established a comprehensive designed both to protect the government's assets from loss, theft, or misu information for the preparation of the City of Schertz's financial stateme Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits. framework of internal controls has been designed the financial statements will be free from material of our knowledge and belief, this financial report i< finances of the City of Schertz. ieteness and reliability of all the for making these representations, internal control framework that is 5e and to compile sufficient reliable its in conformity with U.S. GAAP. the City of Schertz comprehensive rather than absolute assurance that ent As management, we assert that, to the best and reliable in all material respects. The City of Schertz's financial statements have been audited by Armstrong, Vaughan & Associates P.C. a firm of licensed certified public accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of Schertz for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, are free of material misstatement. The ' independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of Schertz's financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, are fairly presented in conformity with U.S. GAAP. The independent auditor's report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report. GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD &A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD &A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City of Schertz's MD &A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. Profile of the Government The City of Schertz, incorporated in 1958, is located in the central part of Texas, which is considered to be a top growth area in the state, and one of the top growth areas in the country. The City of Schertz currently occupies a land area of 32.21 square miles with a population of 39,453 in 2016 according to the US Census Bureau. The City of Schertz is empowered to levy a property tax on both real and personal properties located within its boundaries. It also is empowered by state statue to extend its corporate limits by annexation, which occurs periodically when deemed appropriate by the governing body. 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.619.1000 °rnhert , onn v The City of Schertz has operated under the council- manager form of government since November 30, 1972. Policymaking and legislative authority are vested in a City Council consisting of the Mayor and seven at- large councilmembers. The City Council is responsible for establishing public policy on City matters by the passage of appropriate ordinances and resolutions. The City Manager is responsible for overseeing the day - to -day operations of the government, implementing policy established by City Council, and for appointing the heads of the various departments. The council is elected on a non - partisan basis. Council members serve three -year staggered terms, with two council members elected every three years and then three council members elected the final three years in the cycle. The mayor is elected to serve a three -year teen. The mayor and all seven council members are elected at large. The City of Schertz provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection, EMS services, the construction and maintenance of streets, recreational facilities, cultural events, water and sewer services. The annual budget and five -year forecast serve as the foundation for the City of Schertz'`s financial planning and control. All city departments are required to submit requests for appropriation to the City Manager by June of each year. The City Manager uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The City Manager then presents the proposed budget to the council for review in early August. The council then holds public hearings and community meetings on the proposed budget and to adopt a final budget by September 30t''. The fiscal year for Schertz is from October 1 through September 30. The appropriated budget is prepared by each department (e.g. police). The City Manager may make transfers of appropriations within a department. The City Manager may make transfer's between departments and funds with City Council approval. Budget to actual comparisons are provided in this report for each individual governmental fiend for which an appropriated annual budget has been adopted. For the general fiend, this comparison is presented on pages 60 -63 as part of the required supplementary information. Factors Affecting Financial Condition The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City of Schertz operates. Local economy. Economic growth in Schertz remained strong in 2017. As of September, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported that the San Antonio Business -Cycle Index, of which Schertz data is incorporated, was 5.4 percent in October 2017 which is above the long term growth average of 3.1 percent showing strong growth is continuing in the area. The increase was due to a 3.9 percent increase in job growth in the metro area helping to maintain the unemployment rate at 3.8 percent, which is the lowest rate since the data began in 1975. The City of Schertz realized 0.5% percent year- over -year decrease in sales tax collection during the fiscal year. The decrease was a result of two audit adjustments by the State Comptroller's Office, one during FY 2015 -16 and one during FY 2016 -17. The September 2016 deposit included an additional $1.77,435.53 owed to the City of Schertz from the State Comptroller's Office while April 2017 saw a withdraw of $167,973.47 for payments improperly granted to the City of Schertz by the State. These two audit adjustments were unrelated. Without these two adjustments, sales taxes would have grown by 2% instead. During the 2017 calendar year, there were three major construction projects completed in Schertz. Each of the projects were built as speculative projects to help absorb increased demand for industrial space within the San Antonio market. The projects included: 9850 Doerr Lane (215,000 square feet), 7377 Doerr Lane (147,499 square feet), and 6729 Guada -Coma Drive (60,700 square feet). Currently those new constructions are 10% occupied. According to the 2017 Q4 Xceligent Market Report, the Far North East market has a total vacancy rate of 13.8 percent, up from 10.6 percent for the previous quarter. Despite the increased supply, average asking rates continue to increase by $0.27 to $5.28 NNN. vi Long -term financial planning. The community approved bond propositions in November 2010 for quality of life projects which included an aquatics facility, improvements to the baseball fields and soccer fields, building a new animal adoption facility, and improvements to Main Street. The only remaining project are the Main Street improvements. Construction was completed for the aquatic facility in January 2017 while the Main Street improvements continue to be developed. In November 2015, the City placed 2 bond propositions before the voters totaling $15 million. $7 million was for FM road ways which the City will partner with the Texas Department of Transportation, who will provide matching funds, and $8 million for a new Fire Station located in the southern portion of Schertz. In June 2017, the second $4 million was issued for the Fire Station to begin construction. Currently the Fire Station is estimated to be completed in 2019. Current Year Budget Initiatives. In FY 2016 -17, the City's main initiatives that had a major budget impact were the implementation of the second -year recommendation of the Classification and Compensation Study to bring the wages up to a more competitive level, hiring 3 additional Fire Fighters that will be needed with the opening of Fire Station #3, and opening the new Aquatics Facility. The City also preformed its first citizen satisfaction survey which will provide valuable insight for the FY 2017 -18 Budget. FY 2016 -17 also saw a grant award by the State for additional trail connections and sidewalks throughout the City. Estimated benefit to the City will be $800,000 received for the $1,000,000 project. Financial Information: Internal Control. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls designed to ensure that assets of the City are protected from loss, tbeft or misuse and to provide adequate accounting information compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The internal control system is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of an internal control should not exceed the benefits derived from the internal control. The City utilizes financial accounting software which is designed with a system of internal controls. These controls are continually being reevaluated to provide Treasonable, but not absolute, assurances. Budget Controls. The City also utilizes budgetary controls. Legally expenditures cannot exceed the appropriated amount. The objective of these budgetary controls is to ensure compliance with the adopted budget approved by the City Council as mandated by the city charter and state law. The levels of budgetary control are established at the line -item basis and at the fund level. Staff believes these controls help monitor and direct approved expenditures to a level within the budget parameters which directly results in a strong financial performance. Financial Results. Assets and fund balances continue to grow as the City grows and financial results remain. strong. While additional debt was issued during the year, Staff closely monitors and plans the amount of issuance to keep steady debt ratios per capita, per revenue, and per operations tax rate to the debt tax rate. Examples of these ratios can be found in the Statistical Section on pages 109, 110 and 104. A more detailed summary of the City's Financial Performance is available in the Management Discussion and Analysis section on page 5. Independent Audit. An independent audit is performed every year of the general ledger, accounts, financial records, and transactions of all city departments. The audit is completed by an independent certified public accounting firm selected by the City Council. The City is in compliance with this requirement and the independent auditor's report by Armstrong, Vaughan, & Associates P.C. Certified Public Accountants, has been included in this report. vii Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Schertz for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. This was the 32nd consecutive year that the City has received this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the finance department. We would like to express our appreciation to all members of the department who assisted and contributed to the preparation of this report. In conclusion, we would have none of the success we have enjoyed without the assistance of each and every staff member, as well as the support and strategic direction from the Mayor and the City Council during the strategic planning, pre- budget, and budget approval process. Respectfully submitted, Brian C. James Acting City Manager viii James P. Walters Finance Director CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS CITY OFFICIALS 1►I_i:\__Zo ' ' me] IIa Lli CITY COUNCIL MICHAEL CARPENTER. CEDRIC EDWARDS, SR. MARK DAVIS RALPH GUTIERREZ SCOTT LARSON ROBIN THOMPSON ANGELINA KISER BERT CRAWFORD CITY MANAGER JOHN KESSEL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JAMES WALTERS CITY ATTORNEY CHARLES ZECH, DENTON, NAVARRO, ROCHA, BERNAL, HYDE & ZECH, P.C. ix CITY OF SCHERTZ ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 1 ;10 0 xi FINANCIAL SECTION I INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Schertz, Texas Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Schertz, as of and for the year ended September 30, 2017, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise City of Schertz's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements City of Schertz's management is responsible for the prepay statements in accordance with accounting principles generally includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of inter presentation of financial statements that are free from material. Auditor's Responsibility 1 and fair presentation of these financial -pted in the United States of America; this control relevant to the preparation and fair statement. whether due to fraud or error. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. 941 West Byrd Blvd., Suite 101 - Universal City, Texas 78148 Phone: 210 -658 -6229 - Fax. 210 - 659 -7611 - Email; info@avacpa.com www.avacpa.com Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Schertz, as of September 30, 2017, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that management's discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison information, schedule of changes in net pension liabilities and related ratios and the schedule of contributions, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such infonnation, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. The budgetary comparison information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the budgetary comparison information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. We have applied certain limited procedures to required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on management's discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison information, and schedule of changes in net pension liabilities and related ratios and the schedule of contributions because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise City of Schertz's basic financial statements. The comparative financial statements, combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements, introductory section, and statistical section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The comparative financial statements and combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the comparative, combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated March 6, 2018 on our consideration of City of Schertz's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City of Schertz's internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Armstrong, Vaughan & Associates, P.C. March 6, 2018 rd MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS As management of the City of Schertz, we offer readers of the City's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City of Schertz for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found in the introductory section of this report. Financial Highlights The assets of the City of Schertz exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $197.8 million (net position). Of this amount, $23.0 million (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. The City's total net position increased by $24.3 million. A significant portion of this increase, 66.4 %, is attributable to capital contributions from developers. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $49.1 million, an increase of $10.1 million in comparison with the prior year. At the end of the fiscal year, the combined total of the General .Fund assigned and unassigned fund balances was $10.8 million which is 45.5% of the general fund expenditures not including capital outlay. The fund balance policy is to reserve a 26% balance. During the fiscal year, the City issued $9.41 million in general obligation bonds and certificates of obligation of which $540,000 is allocated to the proprietary ,fund. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government -wide financial statements. The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private- sector business. The statement of net position presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City of Schertz is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City of Schertz that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City of Schertz include general government, public safety, streets and parks, health, and culture and recreation. The business -type 5 activities of the City of Schertz include a water and sewer department and an emergency medical services department. Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City of Schertz, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. The funds of the City of Schertz can be divided into two categories: governmental and proprietary. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government - wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information is useful in evaluating a government's near -term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for information presented for governmental activities in the government -v so, readers may better understand the long -term impact of the governr Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this funds and governmental activities. The City of Schertz maintains thirteen individual in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the and changes in fund balances for the general ft corporation and the capital projects fund, all of other seven governmental funds are combined intt for each of these non -major governmental fun elsewhere in this report. of the government -wide financial governmental funds with similar side financial statements. By doing cent's near -term financing decisions. latement of revenues, expenditures, comparison between governmental ztal funds. Information is presented separately ntal find statement of revenues, expenditures, ebt service fund, the economic development - onsidered to be major funds. Data from the aggregated presentation. Individual fund data vided in the form of combining statements Proprietary funds. The City of Schertz maintains one type of proprietary fund. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented' as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements. The City of Schertz uses enterprise fiends to account for its water and sewer department and for its emergency medical services department. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the water and sewer department and for the emergency medical services department, both of which are considered to be major funds of the City of Schertz. Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. Other information. In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain required supplementary information concerning the City's general fund budgetary schedule. The City of Schertz adopts an annual appropriated budget for its general fund. A budgetary comparison schedule has been provided for the general fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The economic development corporation also adopts an annual budget, and a comparison schedule for it also is provided in the required supplementary information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non -major governmental funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Government -wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City of Schertz, assets exceeded liabilities by $197.8 million at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City's total net position (78 %) reflects its net investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding, plus bond proceeds that have not yet been signed. The City of Schertz uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for operational type of future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. An additional portion of the City's total net position (10.4 %) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position, $23.0 million, may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Schertz is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year. TA NET Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities 2017 2016 2017 2016 Current and Other Assets $ 53,489,898 $ 45,626,048 $ 34,305,074 $ 28,142,800 Capital Assets 133,989,421 125,109,658 75,578,798 71,023,364 Total Assets 187,479,319 170,735,706 109,883,872 99,166,164 Deferred Outflows 3,637,434 Current Liabilities 7,331,101 ? Long -Tenn Liabilities 76,793,511 Total Liabilities 84,124,612 Deferred Inflows 344,220 Net Investment in Capital Assets Restricted Unrestricted Total Net Position Total 2017 2016 $ 87,794,972 $ 73,768,848 209,568,219 196,133,022 297,363,191 269,901,870 997,659 1,082,823 4,635,093 5,068,413 9,650,691 5,029,905 4,646,767 12,361,006 14,297,458 71,506,935 14,709,300 15,654,519 91,502,811 87,161,454 81,157,626 19,739,205 20,301,286 103,863,817 101,458,912 344,220 84,537,238 74,237,004 70,361,035 64,210,231 154,898,273 138,447,235 20,437,116 17,095,325 - - 20,437,116 17,095,325 1,673,567 2,231,341 20,781,291 15,737,470 22,454,858 17,968,811 $106,647,921 $ 93,563,670 $ 91,142,326 $ 79,947,701 $ 197,790,247 $ 173,511,371 7 The government's net position increased by $24.3 million during the current fiscal year. Sixty -six percent of this increase represents capital contributions from developers. The following table indicates changes in net position for governmental and business -type activities followed by graphs displaying total revenues and expenses by type: TABLE A -2 CHANGES IN NET POSITION FOR GOVERNMENTAL AND BUSINESS -TYPE ACTIVITIES Revenues: Program Revenues: Charges for Services Operating Contributions Capital Contributions General Revenues Property Taxes Other Taxes Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenses: General Government Public Safety Public Environment Parks and Recreation Cultural Health Administration Interest and Other Fees Water and Sewer EM Governmental Activities 2017 2016 $ 5,910,899 $ 5,067,903 552,878 342,485 10,043,483 6,227,664 Business -Type Activities 2017 2016 $ 31,757,607 $ 27,925,017 $ 6,111,474 2,831,126 Total 2017 2016 37,668,506 $ 32,992,920 552,878 342,485 16,154,957 9,058,790 16,166,006 1 15,131,997 - - 1 16,166,006 1 15,131,997 13,595,041 1 13,760,248 - - - - 1 13,595,041 1 13,760,248 448,408 1 187,847 2 211,466 1 102,642 6 659,874 2 290,489 182,754 3 309,275 4 475,733 5 522,221 6 658,487 8 831,496 46,899,469 4 41,027,419 3 38,556,280 3 31,381,006 8 85,455,749 7 72,408,425 6,253,926 6 6,557,778 - - 6 6,253,926 6 6,557,778 13,061,120 1 12,141,968 - - 1 13,061,120 1 12,141,968 4,460,540 4 4,147,653 - - 4 4,460,540 4 4,147,653 2,859,974 2 2,034,964 2 2,859,974 2 2,034,964 1,004,747 9 954,871 - - 1 1,004,747 9 954,871 776,494 5 570,204 - - 7 776,494 5 570,204 3,052,102 1 1,954,276 3 3,052,102 1 1,954,276 2,355,714 2 2,240,783 - - - - 2 2,355,714 2 2,240,783 - - - 2 21,346,078 2 20,269,111 2 21,346,078 2 20,269,111 Total Expenses 33,824,617 30,602,497 27,352,256 25,273,221 61,176,873 55,875,718 INCREASE IN NET POSITION BEFORE TRANSFERS 13,074,852 10,424,922 11,204,024 6,107,785 24,278,876 16,532,707 Transfers 9,399 29,211 (9,399) (29,211) - - CHANGE IN NET POSITION 13,084,251 10,454,133 11,194,625 6,078,574 24,278,876 16,532,707 BEGINNING NET POSITION 93,563,670 83,109,537 79,947,701 73,869,127 173,511,371 156,978,664 ENDING NET POSITION S 106,647,921 $ 93,563,670 $ 91,142,326 $ 79,947,701 $ 197,790,247 $ 173,511,371 $18,000,000 $16,000 AL REVENUES- GOVERNMENT -WIDE Charges for Operating Capital Grants Property Taxes Other Taxes Services Grants and and Contributions Contributions g Unrestricted Miscellaneous Investment Earnings $18,000,000 $16,000 AL REVENUES- GOVERNMENT -WIDE Charges for Operating Capital Grants Property Taxes Other Taxes Services Grants and and Contributions Contributions g Unrestricted Miscellaneous Investment Earnings 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL EXPENSES - GOVERNMENT -WIDE Revenues- Governmental Activities (Continued) General Revenue by Source - Governmental Activities Tax, 51 % ®2017 ®2016 Business -Type Activities Business -Type activities accounted for 45.9% of the growth in the net position of the City of Schertz. Of this increase, 54.6% is the result of capital contributions from developers. For the most part, increases in expenses closely paralleled inflation and the change in revenues was primarily related to fluctuations in capital contributions from developers. 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 $25,0 $20,0 $15,0 $10,0 10 Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the City of Schertz uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. Governmental funds. The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near -term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $49.1 million. Of this total amount, $10.0 million constitutes unassigned fund balance, which is available for spending at the government's discretion. The remainder of fund balance is non- spendable, restricted, or assigned to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been committed to pay debt service, for capital improvement projects, and other assigned purposes. The general fund is the chief operating fund of the City of Schertz. At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance of the general fund was $10.0 million, while total fund balance was $13.0 million, an increase of $1.5 million from the prior year. As a measure of the general fund's liquidity, it may be useful to compare both unassigned fund balance and total fiend balance to total fund expenditures. Unassigned fund balance represents 41.8% of total general fund expenditures, not including capital. The debt service fund has a total fund balance of $1_5 million all of which is restricted for the payment of debt service. The net increase in fund balance during the current year in the debt service fund was $0.1 million. The capital projects fund has a total fund balance of $16.9 million, an increase of $5.3 million. The City issued $8.87 million in new governmental bonds to supplement capital project activity during the year. Proprietary funds. The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position of the water and sewer fund at the end of the year amounted to $20.2 million and those for the Schertz EMS fund amounted to $1.1 million. The proprietary fund issued $540 thousand in new bonds to supplement capital project activity during the year. General Fund Budgetary Highlights The General Fund expenditures were $939 thousand less than the $25.5 million budget. This was the result of cost savings across most of the General Fund. Revenues were higher by $796 thousand than budgeted. Overalls the fund balance increased by $1.5 million higher than budgeted. 11 CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION Capital assets. The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business -type activities as of September 30, 2017, amounts to $209.6 million (net of accumulated depreciation). Developers contributed $15.4 million in infrastructure during the year. The City also has several projects in progress from voter approved bonds. Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in the note 7 to the basic financial statements. Land Water Rights Buildings and Improvements Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles Infrastructure Construction in Progress Accumulated Depreciation TOTALS TABLE A -3 CAPITAL ASSETS (Net of Depreciation) Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities T 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 $ 7,499,108 $ 7,499,108 $ 1,354,138 $ 1,354,138 $ 8,853,246 $ 8,853,246 - - 70,245 70,245 70,245 70,245 43,677,947 43,607,412 4,660,001 4,660,001 48,237,948 48,267,413 10,347,015 9,282,067 5,013,077 5,495,324 15,360,092 14,377,391 109,303,478 100,003,048 92,807,350 85,890,831 202,110,828 185,893,879 13,632,514 9,832,153 2,907,404 2,681,683 16,539,918 12,513,836 (50,470,641) (45,114,130) (31,233,417) (28,728,858) (81,704,058) (73,842,988) $ 133,989,421 $ 125,109,658 Long -Term Debt. At the end of the current fiscal year outstanding of $76.7 million. The related principal and in annual ad valorem tax levied against all taxable property w "AA+" rating from Standard and Poors. Additional inform, in note 10 to the basic financial statements. 2017 General Obligation Bonds $ 55,225, Certificates of Obligation 8,560, Tax Notes and Leases 1,230, TOTALS $65,015 TABLE A -4 $ 209,568,219 $ 196,133,022 City of Schertz had total bonded debt t payment for the bonds are backed by an the City. The City of Schertz maintains a on the City's long -term debt can be found Business -Type Activities Total 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 $ 54,995,000 $ 2,530,000 $ 3,010,000 $ 57,755,000 $ 58,005,000 3,850,000 8,050,000 8,220,000 16,610,000 12,070,000 1,740,000 1,065,000 1,360,000 2,295,000 3,100,000 $ 60,585,000 $11,645,000 $12,590,000 $ 76,660,000 $ 73,175,000 12 Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates At the end of the last fiscal year, the assigned and unassigned fund balance in the general fund increased to $10.0 million. The City of Schertz has appropriated $1.5 million of this amount for spending in the 2018 fiscal year budget. The approved tax rate decreased marginally to $0.4910 per $100 of valuation. Each year the City updates its five -year budgeting forecast and has implemented a long -term debt model to assist management in making informed financial decisions that will impact the community now and in the future. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Office of the Finance Director, City of Schertz, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154. 13 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 14 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF NET POSITION SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances) Taxes Accounts and Other Current Service Concession Arrangement Receivable Accrued Interest Income Inventories Internal Balances Total Current Assets Noncurrent Assets: Restricted Assets: Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Service Concession Arrangement Receivable Capital Assets: Land Water Rights Buildings and Improvements Equipment and Vehicles Infrastructure Construction in Progress Accumulated Depreciation Total Noncurrent Assets ffl". IF.W"� DEFERRED. OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred Loss on Debt Refundings Deferred Pension Related Outflows TOTAL DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 15 Primary Government Governmental Business -Type Activities Activities Total $ 5,265,632 42,160,733 2,751,71.4 1,678,1.32 90,909 7,949 98,263 59,044 52.112.376 617,075 760,447 7,499,108 43,677,947 10,347,015 109,303,478 13,632,514 (50,470,641) 135,366,943 $ 2,353,733 $ 7,619,365 10,277,545 52,438,278 - 2,751,71.4 5,812,200 7,490,332 - 90,909 6,324 1.4,273 133,430 231,693 (59,044) - 18,524,188 70,636,564 1,444,226 2,061,301 14,336,660 14,336,660 - 760,447 1,354,138 8,853,246 70,245 70,245 4,660,001 48,337,948 5,013,077 15,360,092 92,807,350 202,110,828 2,907,404 16,539,918 (31,233,417) (81,704,058) 91,359,684 226,726,627 187,479,319 109,883,872 297,363,191 733,620 89,998 823,61.8 2,903,81.4 907,661 3,811,475 $ 3,637,434 $ 997,659 $ 4,635,093 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF NET POSITION (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 16 Primary Government Governmental Business -Type Activities Activities Total LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable $ 884,1.88 $ 2,094,236 $ 2,978,424 Accrued Liabilities 654,1.17 176,1.60 830,277 Due to Other Governments 1.19,1.49 - 119,1.49 Unearned Revenue 35,346 431,098 ' 466,444 Accrued Interest Payable 445,372 63,571 508,943 Compensated Absences 213,970 62,125 276,095 Customer Deposits 54,200 590,618 644,818 Current Service Concession Arrangement (Liability) 54,153 - 54,153 Current Portion of Long -Term Debt 4,870,606 1,612,097 6,482,703 Total Current Liabilities 7,331,1.01 5,029,905 12,361,006 Noncurrent Liabilities: Compensated Absences 855,879 248,500 1,104,379 Net Other Post - Employment Benefit Payable 506,934 148,821 655,755 Net Pension Liability 12,968,145 4,057,950 17,026,095 Service Concession Arrangement (Liability) 452,983 - 452,983 Long -Term Debt 6,2,009,570 10,254,029 72,263,599 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 76,793,511 14,709,300 91,502,811 TOTAL LIABILITIES 84,124,612 19,739,205 103,863,817 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred Service Concession Arrangement 344,220 - 344,220 TOTAL DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES 344,220 - 344,220 NET POSITION Net Investment In Capital Assets 84,537,238 70,361,035 154,898,273 Restricted For: Police and Municipal Court 1,243,281 - 1,243,281 PEG Capital Fees 638,506 - 638,506 Tourism Development 1,503,873 - 1,503,873 Economic Development 15,069,420 - 15,069,420 Parks and Tree Mitigation 699,725 - 699,725 Debt Service 1,087,260 - 1,087,260 Scholarships and Other Purposes 195,051 - 195,051 Unrestricted 1,673,567 20,781,291 22,454,858 TOTAL NET POSITION $ 106,647,921 $ 91,142,326 $ 197,790,247 See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 16 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 Functions and Programs Expenses Primary Government: Governmental Activities: General Government Public Safety Public Environment Parks and Recreation Cultural Health Administration Interest Total Governmental. Activities Business -Type Activities Water and Sewer EMS Total Business -Type Activities Total Primary Government General Revenues: Taxes: Ad Valorem Sales Franchise Fees Hotel /Motel Mixed Drink Investment Earnint Change in Net Position Net Position at Beginning of Year Net Position at End of Year $ 6,253,926 13,061,120 4,460,540 2,859,974 1,004,747 776,494 3,052,1.02 2,355,71.4 33,824,61.7 Program Revenues 0,899 552,878 1.0,043,483 21,346,078 25,390,713 - 6,111,474 6,006,178 6,366,894 - - 27,352,256 31,757,607 - 6,111,474 61,176,873 $ 37,668,506 $ 552,878 $ 16,154,957 See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 17 Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Services Contributions Contributions $ 874,737 $ 189,264 $ 10,042,931 4,131,548 210,681 - 544,460 129,148 - 330,412 4,144 - 29,742 19,641 552 0,899 552,878 1.0,043,483 21,346,078 25,390,713 - 6,111,474 6,006,178 6,366,894 - - 27,352,256 31,757,607 - 6,111,474 61,176,873 $ 37,668,506 $ 552,878 $ 16,154,957 See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 17 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position Primary Government Governmental Business -Type Activities Activities Total $ 4,853,006 (8,71 8,891) (4,460,540) (2,186,3 66) (670,191) (72-6,559) (3,052,102) (2,355,71.4) (17,317,357) $ 10,156,109 360,716 10,516,825 (17,317,357) 10,516,825 $ 4,853,006 (8,71 8,891) (4,460,540) (2,186,3 66) (670,191) (72-6,559) (3,052,102) (2,355,71.4) (17,317,357) 16,1.66,006 - 10,844,503 - 2,208,373 - 499,466 - 42,699 - 448,408 211,466 182,754 475,733 30,392,209 687,199 9,399 (9,399) 13,084,251 11,194,625 93,563,670 79,947,701 16,1.66,006 10,844,503 2,208,373 499,466 42,699 659,874 658,487 31,079,408 24,278,876 173,511,371 $ 106,647,921 $ 91,142,326 $ 197,790,247 18 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BALANCE SHEET — GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances) Taxes General $ 2,062,393 9,485,725 1,970,300 Capital Projects $ 1,753,815 $ 15,546,171 Debt 59,148 1,390,934 82,550 Property Replacement 854,198 - - Unassigned 9,976,169 - - Total Fund Balances 12,969,618 16,915,997 1,450,082 TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES $ 15,911,389 $ 17,299,986 $ 1,532,632 See Accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 19 Economic Nonmajor Total Development Governmental Governmental Corporation Funds Funds $ 893,858 $ 496,421 $ 5,265,635 13,506,156 2,231,747 42,160,733 665,316 33,548 2,751,714 8,448 - 1,686,081 - - 98,263 - - 617,075 $ 15,073,778 $ 2,761,716 $ 52,579,501 $ 3,940 $ 67,892 $ 884,187 417 - 654,117 - - 54,200 - - 119,149 - - (59,044) - - 35,346 4,357 67,892 1,687,955 15,069,421 514,931 728,350 638,506 16,915,997 1,450,082 1,503,873 699,725 77,137 15,069,421 35,660 4,796 77,458 454,376 - - 854,198 - - 9,976,169 15,069,421 2,693,824 49,098,942 $ 15,073,778 $ 2,761,716 $ 52,579,501 20 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS RECONCILIATION OF BALANCE SHEET SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 TOTAL FUND BALANCE - TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because: Capital Assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Other long -term assets are not available to pay for current - period expenditures $ 49,098,942 133,989,421 and, therefore, are not recognized as revenue in the funds. 1,792,604 The governmental funds report other post - employment benefit contributions as expenditures when they become due and payable. However, in the statement of activities differences between other post - employment benefit contributions and actuarially determined costs are reported as an obligation. Long -term liabilities, including bonds payable and capital leases, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore, not reported in the funds: Bonds Payable Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, Losses Capital Lease Payable Accrued Interest Payable Compensated Absences Service Concession Arrangements (and related deferred inflows and outflows of resources) do not consume current financial resources and are not reported in governmental funds: Service Concession Arrangement (Liability) Service Concession Arrangement Receivable Deferred Service Concessions Net Pension Liabilities (and related deferred inflows and outflows of resources) do not consume current financial resources are not reported in governmental funds: ;ion Liability Related Deferred Outflows TOTAL NET POSITION - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 21 (65,015,000) (1,106,409) (25,151) (445,372) (1,069, 849) (507,136) 851,356 (344,220) (506,934) (67,661,781) (12,968,145) 2,903,814 (10,064,331) $ 106,647,921 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES — GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 EXPENDITURES Current: General Government 5,171,635 - Debt Public Safety General Capital Service Publie Environment Fund Projects Fund REVENUES 1,682,955 - - Taxes $ 19,450,338 $ - $ 6,149,844 Permits and Fees 2,367,929 - - Service Fees 2,107,844 - - Fines and Fees 1,021,965 - - Intergovernmental 307,809 89,264 - Investment Earnings 128,158 123,920 47,758 Miscellaneous 603,477 745,050 100,000 TOTAL REVENUES 25,987,520 958,234 6,297,602 EXPENDITURES Current: General Government 5,171,635 - - Public Safety 11,846,184 - - Publie Environment 1,128,979 - - Parks and Recreation 1,682,955 - - Cultural 901,992 - - Health 672,934 - - Administration 2,395,926 - - Capital Outlay 644,773 4,757,930 - Debt Service: Principal 33,174 - 4,440,000 Interest and Fiscal Charges 36,513 - 2,077,166 Bond Issue Costs - 211,330 2,950 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,515,065 4,969,260 6,520,116 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 1,472,455 (4,01.1,026) (222,514) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Proceeds From Issuance of Debt - 8,870,000 - Premiums from Issuance of Debt - 381,931 - Transfers In 68,385 9,399 361,019 Transfers Out - - - TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 68,385 9,261,330 361,019 Net Change in Fund Balance 1,540,840 5,250,304 138,505 Fund Balances at Beginning of Year 11,428,778 11,665,693 1,311,577 Fund Balances at End of Year $ 12,969,618 $ 16,915,997 $ 1,450,082 See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 22 Economic Development Corporation $ 3,620,930 125,684 3,746,614 92,829 450,524 543,353 3,203,261 Other Nonmaj or Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds $ 499,466 $ 29,720,578 172,116 2,540,045 24,455 2,132,299 195,656 1,217,621 - 397,073 22,897 448,417 209 1,448,736 914,799 37,904,769 130,454 5,394,918 24,452 11,870,636 - 1,128,979+ 202,960 1,8,85,915 19,878 921,870 - 672,934 66,405 2,912,855 89,493 5,4,92,196 - 4,473,174 - 2,113,679 - 21 4,280 533,642 37,081,436 381,157 823,333 8,870,000 381,931 438,803 (361,019) (68,385) (429,404) (361,019) (68,385) 9,261,330 2,842,242 312,772 10,084,663 12,227,179 2,381,052 39,014,279 $ 15,069,421 $ 2,693,824 $ 49,098,942 23 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. In addition, capital assets contributed to governmental activities are not recorded on the fund statements. Capital Outlay Capital Contributions Depreciation Expense Proceeds from capital asset dispositions produce current financial statements, while the net gain (loss) is recognized in the Statemei is net book value of capital assets disposed. $ 10,084,663 Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. The issuance of long -term debt (e.g. bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, which the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any affect on net position. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long -term debt and related items. Proceeds from the Issuance of Debt (8,870,000) Premiums Received from the Issuance of Debt (381,931) Principal Repayments 4,473,174 Amortization of Premiums, Discounts, Losses 27,898 Governmental funds report required contributions to employee pensions as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities the cost of the pension is recorded based on the actuarially determined cost of the plan. This is the amount that actuarially determined pension ome expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds: Compensated Absences (47,306) Net Other Postemployment Benefits (100,056) Accrued Interest (92,169) CHANGE IN NET POSITION - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 24 9,130,314 (250,551) (305,723) (4,750,859) (584,062) (239,531) $ 13,084,251 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF NET POSITION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 25 Governmental Business -Type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities Water Internal and Sewer Sehertz Service System EMS Total Fund ASSETS CurrentAssets: Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 2,353,733 $ - $ 2,353,733 $ - Investments 9,725,719 551,826 10,277,545 ., - Accounts Receivable, Net of Allowance: Customer Accounts 2,719,495 3,092,705 5,812,200 - Due from Other Funds 116,040 - 116,040 - Accrued Interest 6,324 - 6,324 - Inventory 51,790 81,640 133,430 - Total Current Assets 14,973,101 3,726,171 18,699,272 - Noncurrent Assets: Restricted Assets: Cash and Cash Equivalents 1,444,226 - 1,444,226 - Investments 14,246,632 90,028 14,336,660 - Capital Assets: Land 1,354,138 - 1,354,138 - Water Rights 70,245 - 70,245 - Buildings and Improvements 4,653,501 6,500 4,660,001 - Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles 2,814,438 2,198,639 5,013,077 - Infrastructure 92,807,350 - 92,807,350 - Construetion in Progress 2,907,404 - 2,907,404 - Less: Accumulated Depreciation (29,835,794) (1,397,623) (31,233,417) - Total Noncurrent Assets 90,462,140 897,544 91,359,684 - TOTAL ASSETS 105,435,241 4,623,715 110,058,956 - DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred Loss on Refunding 89,998 - 89,998 - Deferred Pension Related Outflows 359,249 548,412 907,661 TOTAL DEFERRED OUTFLOWS $ 449,247 $ 548,412 $ 997,659 $ - See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 25 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF NET POSITION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable Accrued Liabilities Customer Deposits Accrued Interest Payable Due to Other Funds Unearned Revenue Current Portion of Compensated Absences Current Portion of Long -Term Debt Total Current Liabilities Noncurrent Liabilities: Compensated Absences Net Other Post - Employment Benefit Payable Net Pension Liability Long -Term Debt (Net of Current Portion) Total Noncurrent Liabilities TOTAL LIABILITIES NET POSITION Net Investment in Capital Assets Unrestricted TOTAL NET POSITION See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 26 Governmental Business -Type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities Water Internal and Sewer Schertz Service System EMS Total Fund $ 2,037,480 $ 56,756 $ 2,094,236 $ - 45,370 130,790 176,160 ' - 590,618 - 590,618 - 55,618 7,953 63,571 - - 175,084 175,084 - 431,088 10 431,098 - 1.9,212 42,913 62,125 - 1,282,556 329,541 1,612,097 - 4,461,942 743,047 5,204,989 - 76,847 171,653 248,500 - 48,451 100,370 148,821 - 1,603,324 2,454,626 4,057,950 - 9,441,450 812,579 1.0,254,029 - 11,170,072 3,539,228 14,709,300 - 15,632,01.4 4,282,275 19,914,289 - 70,065,611 295,424 70,361,035 - 20,186,863 594,428 20,781,291 - $ 90,252,474 $ 889,852 $ 91,142,326 $ - See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 26 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 OPERATING REVENUES Fees Charged to Users Charges for Premiums Other Charges TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel Services Contribution to Joint Ventures Water Purchase Garbage Contractor Sewage Treatment General and Administrative Contractual Services Supplies and Maintenance Depreciation TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPI Investment Earnings Lease Income Miscellaneous Interest Expense Amortization TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) INCOME BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS Capital CHANGE IN NET POSITION Governmental Business -Type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities Water Internal and Sewer Sehertz Service System EMS Total Fund $ 25,079,280 $ 6,366,894 $ 31,446,174 $ - - - - 2,690,926 311,433 - 311,433 - 25,390,713 6,366,894 31,757,607 2,690,926 1,861,475 3,976,190 5,837,665 2,690,926 2,542,314 2,542,314 - 2,918,214 - 2,918,214 - 4,342,077 - 4,342,077 - 3,763,487 - 3,763,487 - 2,454,165 541,006 2,995,171 - 356,891 651,726 1,008,617 - 458,539 480,692 939,231 - 2,282,145 339,171 2,621,316 - 20,979,307 5,988,785 26,968,092 2,690,926 11 207,817 232,754 122,373 (368,390) 1,619 378,109 4,789,515 - 3,649 211,466 - 232,754 120,606 242,979 (17,393) (385,783) 1,619 196,173 106,862 303,035 4,607,579 484,971 5,092,550 - (9,399) (9,399) 6,111,474 - 6,111,474 10,719,053 475,572 11,194,625 - NET POSITION AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 79,533,421 41.4,280 79,947,701 - NET POSITION AT END OF YEAR $ 90,252,474 $ 889,852 $ 91,142,326 $ - See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 27 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 Cash Flows From Operating Activities: Cash Received From Customers and Users Cash Received from Interfund Services Cash Paid to Employees for Services Cash Paid to Supplier for Goods & Services Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities Governmental Business -Type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities Water Internal and Sewer Schertz Service System EMS Total Fund $ 25,048,982 $ 5,591,596 (1,836,377) (3,810,177) (16,460,515) (1,704,734) 6,752,090 76 Cash Flows From Noncapital Financing Activities: Cash Advances From /(To) Other Funds - Net Cash Provided (Used) by Noncapital Financing Activities - Cast Fin Acc Inte Prir IN Cast Pun Prei Pro, Pay Inte P Cast Cas Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents 65 $ 30,640,578 $ - - 2,690,926 (5646,554) (2,690,926) (18165,249) - 775 - 165,685 - 165,685 - (34,510) (1,065,277) (11,336) (377,309) (229,541) (1,562,097) (275,387) (3,004,683) (552,751) (5,457,328) 19,399 19,399 540,000 540,000 - 232,754 3,649 211,466 10,297 (4,453,709) (22,720) (463,932) 1,779,941 22,720 1,802,661 2,459,230 - 2,459,230 4,239,171 22,720 4,261,891 Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year: Cash and Cash Equivalents 2,353,733 - 2,353,733 - Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents 1,444,226 - 1,444,226 - $ 3,797,959 $ - $ 3,797,959 $ - See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 28 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - PROPRIETARY FUNDS (CONTINUED) FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 Governmental Business -Type Activities - Enterprise Funds Activities Water Internal and Sewer Schertz Service System EMS Total Fund Reconciliation of Operating Income to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities: Operating Income $ 4,411,406 $ 378,109 $ 4,789,515 $ Revenues from Other Sources 122,373 120,606 242,979 Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities: Depreciation 2,282,145 339,171 2,621,316 Decrease (Increase) in Assets: Accounts Receivable (net) (494,473) (895,886) (1,390,359) Prepaid Expenses 17,189 19,327 36,516 Inventory 9,928 (47) 9,881 Deferred Pension Outflows 25,794 53,434 79,228 Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities: Accounts Payable 348,055,. (50,590) 297,465 Accrued Liabilities (7,659) 11,302 3,643 Customer Deposits 20,868 - 20,868 Unearned Revenue 9,501 (18) 9,483 Compensated Absences (11,920) 15,727 3,807 Net Pension Liability 30,066 62,286 92,352 Net Other Post - employment Benefit Payable (11,183) 23,264 12,081 Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities $ 6,752,090 $ 76,685 $ 6,828,775 $ - Noncash Capital and Related Financing Transactions: Developer Contributions of Capital Assets $ 6,111,474 $ See accompanying notes to basic financial statements. 29 NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 30 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of Schertz is a municipal corporation governed by an elected mayor and five- member council. The financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the City's accounting policies are described below: A. Reporting Enti Component Units - As required by generally accepted accounting principles, these financial statements present the government and its component units, entities for which the government is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although legally separate entities, are, in substance, part of the govermuent's operations; thus, data from these units are be combined with data of the primary government. Discretely presented component units, on the other hand, are reported in a separate column in the government -wide financial statements to emphasize it is legally separate from the government. The City reports the following blended component units: Schertz Economic Development Corporation promoting economic development in order to promote and encourage employment and publ of directors consists of seven (7) members E accountable for the Corporation because the financial reporting purposes, the SEDC is repo purpose is to benefit the citizens of the City. t Development Corporation may be obtained fro Parks and Recreation Fc community parks, trails, The Foundation's �4ovcr accounting records are provides financing for budget process. The F to the City and its citi2 ration was organized for the purpose of ployment and underemployment and to for, and on behalf of the City. The board ointed by the city council. The City is financially ity council approves the Corporation's budget. For d as if it were part of the City's operations because its replete financial statements for the Schertz Economic City Hall. ndation — The Foundation was organized to improve and expand the rues, and recreational programs providing fun leisure and healthy activities. g board is comprised of Schertz residents and employees of the City, the ntained by the finance department, cash is held by the City and the City oundation. In addition, the City includes the Foundation as part of the City rtion qualifies as a blended component unit as it provides services entirely The Foundation was dissolved by the City in the current year. Joint Ventures - A joint venture is a legally separate entity that results from a contractual arrangement and that is owned, operated, or governed by two or more participating governments. The following entities meet the criteria as joint ventures. Separate financial statements for these entities may be obtained at City Hall. 1. Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation - is a public, nonprofit corporation organized to aid, assist, and act on behalf of the cities of Schertz and Seguin in acquiring, constructing, maintaining, and operating a water utility system. The participating governments have an ongoing financial responsibility to fund the operation of the corporation through either purchase of services or by subsidizing the operations. Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation — is a public, nonprofit corporation organized July 28, 2011 to aid, assist, and act on behalf of the cities of Cibolo, Converse and Schertz in acquiring, constructing, maintaining, and operating a water utility system. The participating governments have an ongoing financial responsibility to fund the operation of the corporation through either purchase of services or by subsidizing the operations. 31 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) 3. Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (CCMA) — was created in 1971 and provides regional wastewater services to the area northeast of San Antonio. The City and CCMC entered into a joint project to develop a new treatment facility that will currently only serve the City. The project will have excess capacity to serve other users in the future. The City is solely responsible for funding the project until other users need capacity. B. Government -Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the activities of the primary government and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovermnental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges of customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental fiends and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. Measurement Focus. Basis ofAccountina. and Financial Statement Presentation The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fiend financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Nonexchange revenues that are measurable but not available are recorded as unavailable revenue (a deferred inflow of resources). These revenues are generally property taxes and warrants outstanding. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Exchange revenues (payments for services) received in advance of the service being provided are recorded as unearned revenue. 32 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) The City reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the City's primary operating fund which accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Debt Service Fund accounts for the resources accumulated and payments made for principal and interest on long -term general obligation debt of governmental funds. The Capital Proiects Fund accounts for financial resources to be used for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities and is principally financed by the sale of bonds or certificates of obligation and grants. Economic Development Corporation collects sales taxes to support business development and expansion within the City. Nonmaior Funds include Special Revenue funds (other than major projects and grants). The government reports the following major proprietary funds: The Water and Sewer System Fund accounts for the water and sewer services provided to the citizens through user charges. The EMS Fund accounts for the emergency medical services provided to the citizens of the City and other participating governments through user charges. Internal Service Fund accounts for the City's group medical insurance program. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. Exceptions to this are charges between the City's general government function and various other functions of the City. Eliminations of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applications for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions. General revenues include all taxes and investment earnings. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fiend's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the water and sewer enterprise fund and the EMS enterprise fund are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. 33 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. D. Cash and Cash Eauivalents The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand and demand deposits. Cash is reported as restricted when it has restrictions on its use narrower than the purpose of the fund in which it is reported. This can result in differences in presentation between fund statements and government -wide statements. E. Investments The City is authorized to invest in (1) obligations of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities; (2) direct obligations of the State of Texas or its agencies; (3) other obligations, the principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed or insured by the State of Texas of the United States; (4) obligations of states, agencies, counties, cities, and other political subdivisions of any state having been rated of not less than "AA" or its equivalent; (5) certificates of deposit issued by state and national banks domiciled in Texas that are guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or its successor, or secured by obligations mentioned above; and (6) fully collateralized direct repurchase agreements having a defined termination date. In addition, the City is authorized to invest in local government investment pools. The investment pools operate in accordance with appropriate state laws and regulations and have regulatory oversight from the Texas Public Funds Investment Act Sec. 2256.0016. The fair value of the City's position in each pool is the same as the fair value of the pool shares. F. Receivables and Payables Activities between the funds that are representative of interfund loans outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as due to /from other funds. Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business -type activities are reported in the government -wide financial statements as "internal balances ". Accounts receivable are reported net of allowances for uncollectible accounts. The allowance account represents management's estimate of uncollectible accounts based upon experience and historical trends. Property taxes for the City are levied each October 1 on the taxable value as of the preceding January 1, the date a lien attaches, for all taxable real and personal property located in the City. Taxes are due by January 31 following the October 1 assessment date and become delinquent on February 1, at which time they begin accruing penalty and interest. The enforceable legal claim date for property taxes is the assessment date; therefore, the City did not record a receivable for accrual of future taxes at year end. Accordingly, no current taxes receivable are reported. Delinquent taxes have been reported in the financial statements net of the allowance for uncollectible taxes. Tax revenues are recognized as they become available. Accordingly, an amount equal to taxes not yet available has been reported as unavailable revenue (a deferred inflow of resources) at the government fund level. 34 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) G. Inventories and Prepaid Items All inventories are valued at cost using the first -in /first -out (FIFO) method. Inventories of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both governmental -wide and fund financial statements and in the fund financial statements are offset by a nonspendable fund balance which indicates they do not represent "available spendable resources ". H. Restricted Assets Certain proceeds from bonds, resources set aside for their repayment, and other restrictive agreements are classified as restricted assets on the balance sheet because they are maintained in separate bank accounts and their use is limited by applicable bond covenants and/or contractual arrangements. I. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land, buildings and improvements, > machinery, equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure assets (i.e., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business -type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. When capital assets are purchased, they are capitalized and depreciated in the government -wide financial statements and the proprietary fund statements. Capital assets are recorded as expenditures of the current period in the governmental fund financial statements. Capital assets are valued at cost where historical records are available and at an estimated cost where no records exist. Donated capital assets, donated works of art and similar items received as part of a service concession arrangement are reported at acquisition value. All other donated capital assets are valued at their estimated fair market value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized. Improvements to capital assets that materially extend the life of the asset or add to the value are capitalized. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during construction will not be capitalized in the governmental activities on the government -wide financial statements; however capitalization of interest is required for business -type activities. There was no capitalized interest during the current fiscal year. Capital assets are depreciated over their useful lives on a straight -line basis as follows: Useful Lives Assets (Years) Buildings and Improvements 10-50 Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles 2-20 Infrastructure 15-30 35 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) J. Deferred Inflows /Outflows of Resources A deferred outflow of resources is a consumption of net position by the government that is applicable to a future reporting period while a deferred inflow of resources is an acquisition of net position. These items are presented in separate sections following assets (deferred outflows) or liabilities (deferred inflows) on the statement of net position. K. Compensated Absences It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and compensatory time benefits. There is no liability for unpaid accumulated sick leave since the City dries not have a policy to pay any amounts when employees separate from service with the City. All vacation and compensatory time pay is accrued when incurred in the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. L. Pensions The net pension liability, deferred inflows, and expense, information about the fiduciary net posi and additions to and deductions from TMRS's fidi as they are reported by TMRS. For this pury contributions) are recognized when due and paya reported at fair value. M. Long -Term Obligations lows of resources related to pensions, and pension of the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS), y net position have been determined on the same basis benefit payments (including refunds of employee n accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are In the government -wide financial statements, and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long -term debt and other long -term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business -type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net position. Bond premiums, discounts, and losses on defeasance are amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Losses on defeasance are reported as deferred outflows of resources. Bond issuance costs are expensed as incurred. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. N. Fund Equity Fund balances in governmental funds are classified as follows: Nonspendable — Represents amounts that cannot be spent because they are either not in spendable form (such as inventory or prepaid items) or legally required to remain intact. 36 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) N. Fund Equity(Continued) Restricted — Represents amounts that are constrained by external parties, constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Committed — Represents amounts that can only be used for a specific purpose because of a formal action by the government's highest level of decision making authority: an ordinance adopted by City Council prior to the end of the fiscal year. Once adopted, the limitation imposed by the ordinance remains in place until a similar action is taken (the adoption of another ordinance) to remove or revise the limitation. Assigned — Represents amounts which the City intends to use for a specific purpose but do not meet the criteria of restricted or committed. The City Council may make assignments through fonnal documentation in the minutes. The City Council authorized (by way of policy) the City Manager to also make assignments. The City Manager's assignments do not require formal action; however, the City Manager has not assigned any funds at this time. Unassigned — Represents the residual balance that may be spent on any other purpose of the City. When an expenditure is incurred for a purpose in which multiple classifications are available, the City considers restricted balances spent first, committed second, and assigned third. O. Net Position Net position represents the difference between assets plus deferred outflows of resources less liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. Net investment in capital assets consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, reduced by the outstanding balances of any borrowing used for the acquisition, construction or improvements of those assets, and adding back unspent proceeds. Net assets are reported as restricted when there are limitations imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. P. Estimates The preparation of financial statements, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual amounts could differ from those N Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for all governmental funds except the library grant special revenue fund, police department forfeiture special revenue fund and the capital projects fund, which adopts project - length budgets. R. Reclassifications Certain reclassifications have been made in the presentation of the September 30, 2017 financial statements. All comparative information for prior periods has been reclassified to match the new presentation. The changes in presentation had no impact on the changes in net position or fund balance. 37 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 2 - CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS The City's operating deposits are held at one institution. The institution provides a combination of pledged collateral and FDIC insurance to completely collateralize the City's deposits. As of September 30, 2017, the City had the following pooled investment funds: Investment Type LOGIC Lone Star Investment Pool Texas CLASS Schertz Bank & Trust - Certifieates of Deposit Capital One - U.S. Agency Securities Total Interest Rate Risk. As a means of limiting its f the City's investment policy limits the City's unanticipated cash requirements, and/or to re current holdings. Weighted Average Fair M; Value in $ 17,541,325 21,322,949 21,623,633 3,153,510 3,133,521 180 676 6,774,938 91 lue losses arising from rising interest rates, olio to highly liquid investments to meet other investments expected to outperfonn Credit Risk. State law limits investments in certificates of deposit to guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or its successor or the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, or its successor and investment pools continuously rated no lower than AAA or an equivalent rating by at least one nationally recognized rating service. The City's investment policy does not further limit its investment choices. As of September 30, 2017, the City's investments in the pooled investment funds were rated AAAm by Standard & Poor's. The City; has also invested in debt securities provided by the Federal Home Loan. Bank, Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks, and U.S Treasury Notes. As of September 30, 2017, the City's investments in debt securities were rated BBB+ by Standard & Poor's. Custodial Credit Risk - Deposits. In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the government's deposits may not be returned. As of September 30, 2017, the City's cash and cash equivalents (including certificates of deposit, and component unit holdings) were fully collateralized by the City's depository by a combination of pledged collateral and FDIC insurance. All collateral is held in the City's name. Custodial Credit Risk - Investments. For an investment, this is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. All of the government securities owned by the City are held by its agent in the City's name. 38 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 3 - FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable inputs. As of September 30, 2017, . the City's recurring fair value measurement assets consist Agency Securities. These investments are valued using prices quoted in active markets The following table summarizes the assets for which fair values are determined September 30, 2017: Investment Type Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Observable Inputs ('Level 2) xed Income U.S. lose securities. basis as of Fair Value $ 3,133,521 60,487,907 $ - $ 63,621,428 raeted with the Guadalupe County Tax ne delinquent February 1. Current year election action. The total taxable value was $3,647,504,903 (i.e., market value making the taxable value 85% of the y taxes up to $2.50 per $100 of taxable ion of the Attorney General of the State )r the payment of long -term debt. The ig the payment of principal and interest 911 per $100 of assessed value, which nd could increase its annual tax levy by before the limit is reached. :alculated in accordance with the Texas Property Tax Code without holding a public hearing. The Property Tax Code subjects an increase in the effective tax rate to a referendum election, if petitioned by registered voters, when the effective tax rate increase is more than eight percent (8 %) of the previous year's effective tax rate. 39 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 4 - PROPERTY TAX (Continued) Property taxes are recorded as receivables and unearned revenues at the time the taxes are assessed. In governmental funds, revenues are recognized as the related ad valorem taxes are collected. Additional amounts estimated to be collectible in the time to be a resource for payment of obligations incurred during the fiscal year and therefore susceptible to accrual in accordance with generally accepted "accounting principles have been recognized as revenue. In the government -wide financial statements, the entire levy is recognized as revenue, net of estimated uncollectible amounts (if any), at the levy date. NOTE 5 - RECEIVABLES Receivables as September 30, 2017 for the government's individual major funds and nonmajor funds in the aggregate, including the applicable allowances for uncollectible accounts, are as follows: Receivables: Property Taxes Sales Taxes Occupancy Taxes Franchise Taxes Customers Court Fines Grants Other Gross Receivables Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles Net Total Receivables Governmental Funds Economic Debt General Development Service $ 158,116 $ - $ 87,819 $ - $ 1,330,632 665,316 - - - - - 33,548 491,039 - - - 116,209 - - - 3,836,423 - - - - 8,448 - - _ 5,932,419 673,764 87,819 33,548 Proprietary Funds Water and Schertz fewer Fund EMS 2,813,969 23,335,745 - 51,284 2,813,969 23,387,029 - 5,269 - 94,474 20,294,324 1 —L----82 ,550 -J--j3 ,548 -J-2119 ,495 $ 3,092,705 Governmental funds report unavailable revenue in connection with receivables for revenue that is not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental funds also defer revenue recognition in connection with resources that have been received, but not yet earned. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of unearned/ unavailable revenue and unavailable revenue reported in the governmental funds were as follows: General Fund Delinquent Property Taxes Receivable Court Fines Total General Fund Debt Service Fund Delinquent Property Taxes Receivable Total Debt Service Fund Total Governmental Funds 40 T T,,.,-:t.,T.to $ 148,630 1,561,424 1,710,054 82,550 82,550 $ 1,792,604 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 The composition of interfund balances as of September 30, 2017 is as follows: Due From Capital Projects Fund EMS Due To Amount Water & Sewer $ 116,040 General 175,084 Structured funding for W Short -term pooled cash Ic The following schedule briefly summarizes the City's transfer activity for the year 2017: Transfer From Transfer To Amount Nonmajor Governmental General $ 68,385 EMS Capital Projects 9,399 Economic Development Debt Service 361,019 NOTE 7 - CAPITAL ASSETS Project vent DEA expenditures vent capital purchases in support of debt service El Capital asset activity for the year ended September 30, 2017 was as follows: (1,536,428) - (12,280,121) Beginning (934,052) 377,894 Ending (29,113,036) Balance Increases Deletions Transfers Balance Governmental Activities: 377,894 (50,470,641) 107,778,397 4,272,156 Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated.• 1,057,797 112,857,799 $ 125,109,658 S 9,130,314 $ (250,551) S Land $ 7,,499,108 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,499,108 Construction in Progress 9,832,153 4,858,158 - (1,057,797) 13,632,514 Total Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated 17,331,261 ,t 4,858,158 - (1,057,797) 21,131,622 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated.• Buildings and Improvements 43,607,412 - - 70,535 43,677,947 Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles 9,282,067 706,131 (628,445) 987,262 10,347,015 Streets and Infrastructure 100,003,048 9,300,430 - 109,303,478 Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated 152,892,527 10,006,561 (628,445) 1,057,797 163,328,440 Accumulated Depreciation: Buildings and Improvemea Machinery, Equipment, an Streets and Infrastructure Total Accumulated Depreci Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated, Net Governmental Activities Capital Assets, Net (10,743,693) (1,536,428) - (12,280,121) (5,257,401) (934,052) 377,894 (5,813,559) (29,113,036) (3,263,925) - (32,376,961) (45,114,130) (5,734,405) 377,894 (50,470,641) 107,778,397 4,272,156 (250,551) 1,057,797 112,857,799 $ 125,109,658 S 9,130,314 $ (250,551) S $ 133,989,421 41 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 7 - CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued) Capital asset activity for the year ended September 30, 2017 was as follows: Accumulated Depreciation Buildings and Improvements Beginning (247,349) - - (2,474,006) Ending (2,503,456) Balance Increases Deletions Transfers Balance Business -Type Activities: (25,763,811) Total Accumulated Depreciation (28,728,858) (2,62.1,316) 116,757 - Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated: Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated, Net 66,917,298 3,524,667 - 805,046 71,247,011 Land $ 1,354,138 $ $ $ $ 1,354,138 Water Rights 70,245 - 70,245 Construction in Progress 2,681,683 1,030,767 (805,046) 2,907,404 Total Assets Not Being Depreciated 4,106,066 1,030,767 (805,046) 4,331,787 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated.• Buildings and Improvements 4,660,001 - - 4,660,001 Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles 5,095,324 34,510 (116,757) - 5,013,077 Infrastructure 85,890,831 6,111,473 805,046 92,807,350 Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated 95,646,156 6,145,983 + (116,757) 805,046 102,480,428 Accumulated Depreciation Buildings and Improvements (2,226,657) (247,349) - - (2,474,006) Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles (2,503,456) (608,901,) 116,757 (2,995,600) Infrastructure (23,998,745) (1,765,066)': - - (25,763,811) Total Accumulated Depreciation (28,728,858) (2,62.1,316) 116,757 - (31,233,417) Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated, Net 66,917,298 3,524,667 - 805,046 71,247,011 Business -Type Activities Capital Assets, Net $ 71,023,364. $ 4,555,434 $ - $ - $ 75,578,798 Depreciation expense was charged to functions /programs of the primary government as follows: Governmental Activities: General Government Public Safety Public Environment .. Parks and Recreation Cultural Health Administration Total Depreciation Expense - Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities: Water and Sewer System EMS Total Depreciation Expense - Business Type Activities 42 $ 671,298 744,936 3,296,787 851,154 58,617 84,359 27,254 $ 5,734,405 $ 2,282,145 339,171. $ 2,621,316 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 8 - OPERATING LEASE The City has agreements with several telecommunication companies to place cellular towers on City water towers. The following schedule represents the future minimum lease payments. Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -2027 2028 -2032 I0[jJ7111�!ajWA i711I: \A In 2014, the City entered into two lease agreements based on a bargain purchase option. Therefore, capital recorded at the present value of the future minimut acquired through capital lease are reported in capital September 30, 2017: Less Accumulated Total Future minimum Less: Amount Representing Interest Present Value of Minimum Lease Payments 43 Tntal $ 24x,161 260,569 273,597 287,277 301,641 1,740,127 404.227 as capital leases for accounting purposes a belated capital lease obligation have been iments at the inception date. The assets the following accumulated depreciation at (40,15) $ 93,600 25,505 (358) $ 25,147 Business -type Activities $ 347,705 (250,218) $ 97,487 Business -type Activities $ 70,041 23,347 93,388 (667) $ 92,721 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 10 - LONG TERM DEBT The City issues a variety of long -term debt instruments in order to acquire and/or construct major capital facilities and equipment for governmental activities. These instruments include general obligation bonds, certificates of obligation, and capital leases. These debt obligations are secured by primarily future property tax revenues. In some cases, these bonds are also secured by a pledge of net revenues from the utility system, emergency medical services and economic development sales taxes. However, the amount of the formal pledge is generally limited to $1,000. In June 2017, the City issued $3,935,000 in General Obligation Bonds Series 2017 and $5,475,000 Certificates of Obligations Series 2017 pursuant to the constitution and general laws of the State of Texas, particularly, Subchapter C of Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as amended, and in ordinance adopted by the City Council. The certificates constitute direct and general obligations of the City payable from ad valorem taxes levied against all payable property within the City, as well as pledged revenue of up to $1,000 of the surplus revenues from proprietary funds. The bonds and certificates were issued for the purpose of paying contractual obligations of the City for street improvements, renovations of the Municipal Complex, Senior Center and recreational facilities, purchase of ambulances and fire apparatuses, and the construction of Fire Station No. 2. A summary of the terms of general obligation bonds and combination of tax and revenue certificates of obligation outstanding at September 30, 2017, follows:` Issue Amount Maturity Rate Balance Primary Government General Obligation Bonds 2007 Series $ 6,000,000 2027 4.07% $ 3,495,000 2008 Series 9,900,000 2028 4.13% 6,510,000 2009 Series 9,500,000 2033 2.0%-5.50% 5,465,000 2010 Series, Refunding 2,865,000 2021 2.0%-4.0% 1,215,000 2011 Series 8,250,000 2036 3.0%-6.0% 7,070,000 2011A Series, Refunding 6,745,000 2024 2.33% 4,085,000 2012 Series 7,625,000 2032 2.00% 6,120,000 2014 Series, Refunding 8,450,000 2030 2.0 % -4.0% 8,200,000 2015 Series, Refunding 4,1.85,000 2031 2.0% -3.25% 3,655,000 2016 Series 5,880,000 2036 2.0 % -4.0% 5,475,000 2017 Series 3,935,000 2037 2.0 % -4.0% 3,935,000 Tax Notes 2013 Notes 835,000 2018 0.7%-1.7% 170,000 2013A Notes 800,000 2018 1.30% 165,000 2015 Notes 245,000 2021 1.75% 145,000 2015A Notes 1,020,000 2023 1.54% 750,000 Certificates of Obligation 2016 . Series A 2,375,000 2036 2.0%-4.0% 2,205,000 2016 . Series B 1,475,000 2036 3.0% -3.75% 1,420,000 2017 Series 4,935,000 2037 3.0% -3.75% 4,935,000 Total Governmental Long -Term Obligations $ 65,015,000 44 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 10 - LONG -TERM DEBT (Continued) Issue Amount Primary Government (Continued) General Obligation Bonds 2011 Series, Refunding $ 2,675,000 2013 Series, Refunding 2,1.30,000 Certificates of Obligation 2007 Series CIB 1 6,600,000 2013 Series 4,965,000 2017 Series 540,000 T___ TT_a.__ Maturity 2021 2025 2026 2033 2022 Rate Balance 2.0%-3.0% $ 930,000 2.58% 1,600,000 4.01% 3,880,000 2.0 % -4.0% 3,630,000 3.0% -3.75% 540,000 1.75% 1,065,000 25,147 $ 11,645,000 Balance Due Within 9/30/2017 One Year $ 38,070,000 $ 2,230,000 751,168 43,148 17,155,000 1,510,000 637,446 58,650 8,560,000 465,000 451,415 23,661 1,230,000 515,000 25,147 25,147 1,069,849 213,970 $ 67,950,025 $ 5,084,576 $ 2,530,000 $ 405,000 Unamortized Premium 4,595 - (969) 3,626 969 Certificates of Obligation 8,220,000 540,000 (710,000) 8,050,000 830,000 Unamortized Premium 111,966 19,400 (6,587) 124,779 6,587 Tax Notes 1,360,000 - (295,000) 1,065,000 300,000 Capital Lease 162,262 - (69,541) 92,721 69,541 Compensated Absences 306,818 65,170 (61,363) 310,625 62,125 Total Business-Type Activities $ 13,175,641 $ 624,570 $ (1,623,460) $ 12,176,751 $ 1,674,222 45 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 10 - LONG -TERM DEBT (Continued) Annual debt service requirements of bonded debt as of September 30, 2017, are as follows: September 30, 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -2027 2028 -2032 2033 -2037 Total September 30, 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -2027 2028 -2032 2033 -2037 tl NOTE 1.1 -RE Plan Governmental Activities Principal Interest Total $ 4,720,000 $ 2,417,491 $ 7,137,491 4,210,000 2,201,637 6,411,637 , 4,355,000 2,038,287 6,393,287 4,415,000 1,860,579 6,275,579 4,270,000 1,697,788 5,967,788 1.9,625,000 6,369,435 25,994,435 1.6,165,000 2,974,153 19,139,153 7,255,000 533,363 7,788,363 $ 65,015,000 $ 20,092,733 $ 85,107,733 Business -Type. Activities Principal Interest Total $ 1,535,000 $ 366,416 $ 1,901,416 1,580,000 322,858 1,902,858 1,620,000 , 279,902 1,899,902 1,500,000 233,599 1,733,599 875,000 191,146 1,066,146 3,270,000 s. 540,361 3,810,361 1,035,000 152,900 1,187,900 230,000 4,600 234,600 1,645,000 $ 2,091,782 $ 13,736,782 The City of Schertz participates as one of 872 plans in the nontraditional, joint contributory, hybrid defined benefit pension plan administered by the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS). TMRS is an agency created by the state of Texas and administered in accordance with the TMRS Act, Subtitle G, Title 8, Texas Government Code (the TMRS Act) as an agent multiple- employer retirement system for municipal employees in the State of Texas. The TMRS Act places the general administration and management of the system with a six - member Board of Trustees. Although the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints the Board, TMRS is not fiscally dependent on the State of Texas. TMRS's defined benefit pension plan is a tax - qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Service Code. TMRS issues a publicly available comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) that can be obtained at www.tmrs.com. All eligible employees of the City are required to participate in TMRS. 46 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) Texas Municipal Retirement System (Continued) Benefits Provided TMRS provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are adopted by the governing body of the City, within the options available in the state statutes governing TMRS. At retirement, the benefit is calculated as if the sum of the employee's contributions, with interest, and the City - financed monetary credits with interest were used to purchase an annuity. ` Members may choose to receive their retirement benefit in one of seven payment options. Members may also choose to receive a portion of their benefit as a Partial Lump Sum Distribution in an amount equal to 12, 24, or 36 monthly payments, which cannot exceed 75% of the member's deposits and interest. At the December 31, 2016 valuation and measurement date, the benefit terms: 2015 Inactive Employees or Beneficiaries Currently Receiving Benefits 79 Inactive Employees Entitled to but Not Yet Receiving Benefits 138 Active employees 312 529 Contributions ,s were covered by the 2016 84 155 317 556 The contribution rates for employees in TMRS are either 5 %, 6 %, or 7% of employee gross earnings, and the City matching percentages are either 100 %, 150 %, or 200 %, both as adopted by the governing body of the City. Under the state law governing TMRS, the contribution rate for each city is determined annually by the actuary, using the Entry Age Normal (EAN) actuarial cost method. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the cost of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. Employees for the City were required to contribute 7% of their annual gross earnings during the fiscal year. The contribution rates for the City were 15.94% and 15.87% in calendar years 2016 and 2017, respectively. The City's contributions to TMRS for the year ended September 30, 2017 . were $2,756,511 and were equal to the required contributions. Net The City's Net Pension Liability (NPL) was measured as of December 31, 2016, and the Total Pension Liability (TPL) used to calculate the Net Pension Liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. 47 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) Texas Municipal Retirement System (Continued) Actuarial Assumptions The Total Pension Liability in the December 31, 2016 actuarial valuation was following actuarial assumptions: Inflation 2.5% per year Overall Payroll Growth 3.0% per year Investment Rate of Return* 6.75% ... * Presented net of pension plan investment expense, including inflation determined using the Salary increases were based on a service - related table. Mortality; rates for active members, retirees, and beneficiaries were based on the gender - distinct RP2000 Combined Health: Mortality Table, with male rates multiplied by 109% and female rates multiplied by 103 %. The rates are projected on a fully generational basis by scale BB to account for future mortality improvements. For disabled annuitants, the gender - distinct RP2000 Disabled Retiree Mortality Tables with Blue Collar adjustment are used with males rates multiplied by 109% and female rates multiplied by 103% with 'a 3 -year set- forward for both males and females. IN addition, a 3% minimum mortality rate is applied to reflect the impairment for younger members who become disabled. The rates are projected on a fully generational basis by scale BB to account for future mortality improvements subject to the 3% floor. Actuarial assumptions used in the December 31,`' 2016 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The experience study in TMRS was for the period December 31, 2010 through. December 31, 2014. Healthy post - retirement mortality rates and annuity purchase rates were updated based on a Mortality Experience Investigation; Study covering 2009 through 2011, and dated December 31, 2013. These assumptions were first used in the December 31, 2013 valuation, along with a change to the Entry Age Normal (EAN) actuarial cost method. Assumptions are reviewed annually. Plan assets are managed on a total return basis with an emphasis on both capital appreciation as well as the production of income, in order to satisfy the short-term and long -term funding needs of TMRS. The long -term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building -block method in which best estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce the long -term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding the expected inflation. In determining their best estimate of a recommended investment return assumption under the various alternative asset allocation portfolios, GRS focused on the area between (1) arithmetic mean (aggressive). 48 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) Texas Municipal Retirement System (Continued) Actuarial Assumptions (Continued) The target allocation and best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class in fiscal year 2017 are summarized in the following table: Disci The c to de speci avail; the 1( benel Asset Class Target Allocation Domestic Equity 17.50% International Equity 17.50% Core Fixed Income 10.00% Non -Core Fixed Income 20.00% 49 Long- 4.55% 6.35% 1.00% 4.15% 4.15% 4.75% 4.00% 7.75% . The projection of cash flows used ►tributions will be made at the rates iry Net Position was projected to be and inactive employees. Therefore, applied to all periods of projected CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) Texas Municipal Retirement System (Continued) Changes in the Net Pension Liability The below schedule presents the changes in the Net Pension Liability as of December 31, 2016: Total Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Pension Balance at December 31, 2015 Changes for the year: Service Cost Interest Change of Benefit Terms Difference Between Expected and Actual Experience Changes of Assumptions Contributions - Employer Contributions - Employee Net Investment Income Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions Administrative Expense Other Changes Net Changes Balance at December 31, 2016 The following presents the net l well as what the City's net peg 1- percentage point lower (5.750! Liability $ 55,119,232 2,855,745 3,763,562 139,216 Net Position $ 38,499,857 - 2,627,335 1,152,864 2,602,572 (1,581,272) (1,581,272) (29,385) (1,583) 5,177,251 4,770,531 $ 16,619,375 2,855,745 3,763,562 139,216 (2,627,335) (1,152,864) (2,602,572) 29,385 1,583 406,720 $ 43,270,388 $ 17,026,095 nsion liability of the City, calculated using the discount rate of 6.75 %, as ion liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is or Ipercentage point higher (7.75 %) than the current rate: Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate 5.75% 6.75% 7.75% Net Pension Liability $ 27,443,427 $ 17,026,095 $ 8,668,647 Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about the pension plan's Fiduciary Net Position is available in a separately- issued TMRS financial report. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.tmrs.com. a CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) Texas Municipal Retirement System Continued) Pension Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions For the year ended September 30, 2017, the City recognized pension expense of $3,512,360. Also as of September 30, 2017, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Differences between Expected and Actual Economic Experience Changes in Actuarial Assumptions Differences Between Projected and Actual Investment Earnings Contributions Subsequent to the Measurement Date Deferred Deferred Outflows of Inflows of Resources Resources $ 132,647 $ 39,689 - 1,658,421 - 80,718 - 11,475 $ - Deferred outflows of resources in the amount of $1,980,718 is related to pensions resulting from contributions subsequent to the measurement date, and will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability for the plan year ending December 31, 2017. The City liquidates their Net Pension Liability through payments from the general fund. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: For the Year ended December 31, 2017 $ 613,689 2018 613,689 2019 531,495 2020 45,274 2021 25,004 Thereafter 1,606 $ 1,830,757 C. Other Post - Employment Benefits The City also participates in the cost sharing multiple - employer defined benefit group -term life insurance plan operated by TMRS known as Supplemental Death Benefits Fund (SDBF). The City elected, by ordinance, to provide group -term life insurance coverage to both current and retired employees. The City may terminate coverage under and discontinue participation in the SDBF by adopting an ordinance before November 1 of any year to be effective the following January 1. 51 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT PLAN (Continued) C. Other Post - Employment Benefits (Continued) The death benefit for active employees provides a lump -sum payment approximately equal to the employee's annual salary (calculated based on the employee's actual earnings, for the 12 -month period *preceding the month of death); retired employees are insured for $7,500; this coverage is an "other postemployment benefit," or OPEB. The City contributes to the SDBF at a contractually required rate as determined by an annual actuarial valuation. The rate is equal to the cost of providing one -year term life insurance. The funding policy for the SDBF program is to assure that adequate resources are available to meet all death benefit payments for the upcoming year; the intent is not to pre -fund retiree life insurance during the employees' entire careers. The City's contributions to the TMRS SDBF for the years ended 2017, , 2016, and 2015 were $22,066, $20,324, and $21,681, respectively, which equaled the required contributions each year. NOTE 12 — RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN A. Plan Description The City provides another post - employment benefit to eligible retirees of the City whereby they can stay on the City's health insurance plan by paying the full premium. B. Contributions The City's annual other post - employment benefits (OPEB) cost is calculated based on the annual required contribution (ARC) of the employer, an amount actuarially determined in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of accrual that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover the normal cost each year and to amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excesses) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The City's annual OPEB cost for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017 is as follows: Annual Required Contribution $ 139,51.5 Interest on OPEB obligation 17,91.2 Adjustment to ARC (21,183) Annual OPEB cost 136,244 Contributions (24,107) Increase in net OPEB obligation 112,137 Beginning Net OPEB Obligation 543,618 Ending Net OPEB Obligation $ 655,755 52 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 12 — RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (Continued) B. Contributions (Continued) The City's annual OPEB cost, the amount contributed by the employer, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation for fiscal year ending September 30, , 2017 and the preceding two fiscal years were as follows: September 30, Cost Contributions Contributed Obligation 2017 $ 136,244 $ 24,107 17.7% $ ' 655,755 2016 136,557 23,519 17.2% 543 =,618 2015 81,159 1.5,485 19.1% 430,580 The Projected Unit Credit Cost Method is used to calculate the actuarial required 'contribution (ARC) for the City's retiree health care plan. Using the plan benefits, the present health premiums and a set of actuarial assumptions, the anticipated future payments are projected. The actuarial cost method then provides for a systematic funding for these anticipated payments. The yearly ARC is computed to cover the cost of benefits being earned by covered members as well as to amortize a portion of the unfunded accrued liability. Projections of health benefits are based on the plan as understood by the City and include the types of benefits in force at the valuation date and the pattern of sharing benefit costs between the City and the City's employees to that point. Actuarial calculations reflect a long -term perspective and employ methods and assumptions that are designed to reduce short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets. Significant methods and assumptions were as follows: Inflation Rate 2.5% Investment Rate of Return 4.0 %, net of expenses Actuarial Cost Method Projected Unit of Credit Amortization Method Level as a percent of payroll Amortization Period 30 -year open period Payroll Growth 3.0% Medical Trend Initial rate of 7.50 %, declining to an ultimate rate of 4.25% after 15 years Actuarial valuations involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of events in the future. Amounts determined regarding the funded status and the annual required contributions of the City's retiree health care plan are subject to continual revision as actual results are compared to past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. The required schedule of funding progress presented as required supplementary information provides multiyear trend information that shows whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for benefits. The funded status as of December 31, 2015, the most recent actuarial valuation date, is as follows: Actuarial Actuarial Value Valuation Date of Assets 12/31/2015 Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) Funded Ratio $ 1,055,757 0.0% 53 Unfunded AAL (UAAL) Covered Payroll $ 1,055,757 $ 14,356,845 UAAL as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 7.4% CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 13 - JOINT VENTURES Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation The Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation is a public, nonprofit corporation organized to aid, assist, and act on behalf of the cities of Schertz and Seguin in acquiring, constructing, maintaining, and operating a water utility system. The participating governments have an ongoing financial responsibility to fund the operation of the corporation through either purchase of services or by subsidizing the operations. Contributions to the corporation are reflected as "operating expenses" in the water and sewer fund and totaled $2,242,314 for the year ended September 30, 2017. Separate financial 'statements for the Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation may be obtained from the City of Seguin,, 210 East Gonzales Street, Seguin, Texas 78156. The City of Schertz is jointly liable, together with the City of Seguin, for operating deficits and long -term debt of the Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation. Following is a summary of financial data as reported in the Corporation's audited financial statements dated September 30, 2016: ASSETS: Current Assets $ 14,027,427 Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents 6,859,879 Property, Plant & Equipment (net) 95,187,724 Other Assets 108,809 TOTAL ASSETS 116,183,839 Deferred Charges on Refunding 2,546,875 LIABILITIES: Current Liabilities 4,858,647 Revenue Bonds (Less Current Maturities) 100,976,449 TOTAL LIABILITIES 105,835,096 NET POSITION: Net Investment in Capital Assets (2,288,897) Restricted 5,364,082 Unrestricted 9,820,433 TOTAL NET POSITION $ 12,895,618 The Corporation had net revenue bonds outstanding in the amount of $103,281,449 (as of September 30, 2016) to provide funds to build, improve, extend, enlarge and repair the Corporation's utility system, fund a reserve, and pay the costs of bond issuance. The bond resolution pledges intergovernmental contract revenues from the cities of Schertz and Seguin (the participating governments) to bond holders. Under the intergovernmental water supply contract, the participating governments are unconditionally obligated to pay their respective shares of annual contract revenue bond debt service from the operation of their respective utility systems. 54 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 13 - JOINT VENTURES (Continued) Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation The Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation (CVLGC) is a public nonprofit corporation incorporated in March 2012 to assist and act on behalf of the cities of Schertz, and Cibolo to obtain additional water sources. The participating governments have an ongoing financial responsibility to fund the operation of the corporation through either purchase of services or by subsidizing the operations. Contributions to the corporation are reflected as "operating expenses" in the water and sewer fiend. Separate financial statements for the CVLGC may be obtained from the City of Seguin, 210 East Gonzales Street, Seguin, Texas 78156. The City of Schertz is jointly liable, together with the City of Cibolo, for operating deficits and long -term debt of CVLGC. Following is a summary of financial data as reported in the Corporation's audited financial statements dated September 30, 2016: ASSETS: Current Assets $ 613,204 Noncurrent Assets 1,268,516 TOTAL ASSETS 1,881,720 LIABILITIES: Current Liabilities 92,012 TOTAL LIABILITIES 92,012 NET POSITION: Net Investment in Capital Assets 1,268,516 Unrestricted 521,192 TOTAL NET POSITION $ 1,789,708 Cibolo Creek Municipal Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (COMA) provides sewage treatment for the area in and around the City. CCMA has agreed to construct a sewage treatment facility in the southern portion of the City to primarily serve citizens of the City but also neighboring Cities and future development. Because the City would be the primary customer at this time, the City agreed to enter into a regional wastewater treatment contract in September 2014. COMA will issue bonds to finance the project and the City has agreed to make payments to CCMA to cover operation expenses, maintenance expenses, and debt service. The City is the sole member at this time, so it is responsible for 100% of the project costs. Should other members join, the City's share of the costs would be reduced. W CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 13 - JOINT VENTURES (Continued) Ciholo Creek Municipal Authority (Continued) In September 2014, CCMA issued bonds for the project in the amount of $6,950,000 with debt service requirements as follows: Fiscal Year Ending September 30, Principal Interest Total 2018 $ 150,000 $ 260,250 $ 410,250 2019 155,000 257,250 412,250. 2020 160,000 254,150 414,150 2021 160,000 250,950 410,950 2022 165,000 247,750 410,950 2023 -2027 905,000 1,156,050 2,,061,050 2028 -2032 1,090,000 966,450 2,056,450 2033 -2037 1,340,000 721,950 2,061,950 2038 -2042 1,680,000 372,050 2,052,050 2043 -2044 775,000 46,800 821,800 $ 6,580,000 $ 4,533,650 $ 11,111,850 NOTE 14 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTIN Tax Increment Financing (the "Zone') The City is a principal in the City of Schertz Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone #2, pursuant to Chapter 31.1 of the Texas Tax Code. Under the terms of the Zone agreement, the City of Schertz, Bexar County, and San Antonio River Authority are funding infrastructure improvements through tax increment financing to the Sedona Development Project. At the time the Zone was created; the property tax base was "frozen" and increment taxes resulting from the increases to property tax base are being used to finance Zone improvements. The total projected cost is a combined figure of $45,000,000. Project costs of the developer will be funded up to 100% of the tax increment generated by the City of Schertz, Bexar County, and San Antonio River Authority (SARA). The City of Schertz (combined with SARA) have committed up to $32,877,000 of the total $45,000,000. The Zone has a statutory termination date of December 31, 2027. The TIRZ has collected $949,976 from taxing entities (net of administrative reimbursements) and remitted $771,928 to the developer as of 017. 380 Agreements The Chapter 380 Incentive program, authorized by Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code, enables the City of Schertz to provide grants or reimbursements from the City's general fund. To become eligible for Chapter 380 Incentives, projects must: create at least of $100 million in new real and personal property; or generate at least $35 million in gross sales that is subject to the collection of local sales and use tax. Businesses that have a 380 Incentive agreement with the City are eligible to receive a reimbursement of taxes paid for the year if they have met the requirements outlined in the agreement by a certain date each year. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, the City reimbursed $965,674 in property taxes paid. 56 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 14 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Economic Development Incentive Agreements The City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation (the SEDC) negotiates economic development incentive agreement on behalf of the SEDC and the City of Schertz (the City) on an individual basis. As of September 30, 2017, the City had nine active incentive agreements. On May 2, 2017, the City and the Corporation approved the Schertz Incentive Policy which outlines the City's primary tools to attract commercial investment and promote economic development. Projects are selected on a case -by -case basis in accordance current policy and state laws at the discretion of the governing body. All incentive agreements are formalized through a performance agreement with specified terms and recapture criteria. The SEDC Incentive program, authorized by Chapters 501, 502 and 505 of the Texas Local Government Code, enables the Corporation to fund allowable projects from the collection of one -half of one percent of sales tax proceeds collected in the City of Schertz. In accordance with state law, the SEDC Incentive Policy establishes grants and loans for businesses that create Primary Jobs for the following categories: Existing Businesses (3 years of operation within. City), Small Businesses (fewer than 50 full -time jobs or annual sales less than $10 million), Large Impact Businesses (Up to $100 million in taxable property), and Extra Large Businesses (over $100 million in taxable property). The City and Corporation's outstanding incentive agreement grants are as follows: FY 2016 -17 Amt. Est. Remaining Grant City of Schertz - LGC 380.001 $ 965,674 $ 2,736,572 SEDC - LGC 501.101 - 451,552 Service Concession ArranL-ements The City entered into an agreement with YMCA, under which YMCA will operate and collect user fees from the Natatorium and Outdoor Pools for the next 20 years. YMCA will pay the city $100,000 annually over the course of the arrangement; the present value of these installment payments is estimated to be $851,356. The City will approve the rates and services that YMCA will provide, however, YMCA will retain all revenues earned from the operation of the Natatorium. The YMCA will remit all revenues received from operating the Outdoor Pools to the City with the exception of revenues earned from YMCA specific programs. As of September 30, 2017, the Natatorium is still under construction and is reported by the City as Construction in Progress in the amount of $9,801,311. The City reports the Outdoor Pools and related equipment as capital assets with a total carrying amount of $778,529. The City reports a receivable and deferred inflow of resources in the amount of $851,356 on the government -wide statements at year -end pursuant to the service concession arrangement. Additionally, a liability of $507,136 for the present value of maintenance costs estimated over the life of the Service Concession arrangement. Litigation The City is the subject of various claims and litigation that have arisen in the course of its operations. Management is of the opinion that the City's liability in these cases, if decided adversely to the City, will not have a material effect on the City's financial position. W CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 NOTE 14 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Construction Commitments The City of Schertz has entered into commitments for various projects as follows: Primary Government: Governmental Activities: Lower Seguin Road Improvements Natatorium Project FM 78 and Main Street Fire Station 3 FM 1103 Street Improvements Building Improvements Main Street Improvements FM 1518 Street Improvements Total Governmental Commitments Business -Type Activities: Woman Hollering WasteWater Town Creek Sewer Project (Phase III) Corbett Ground Storage Tank & Pumps Corbett Elevated Water Tank Trainer Hale Road Distribution Main Estimated Project Cost to City Expended to Date $ 304,841 $ 263,598 9,812,363 9,812,363; 1,000,000 7,513 8,000,000 435,007 2,000,000 181;226 1,600,000 30,364 407,057 - 5,000,000 - 28,124,261 10,730,071 931,740 1,650,000 2,982,052 500,000 12,004,216 504,684 931,740 930 286,563 1,723,917 Future 41,243 992,487 7,564,993 1,818,774 1,569,636 407,057 5,000,000 17,394,190 5,435,740 1,649,070 2,695,489 500,000 10,280,299 $ 40,128,477 $ 12,453,988 $ 27,674,489 The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; and natural disasters. The City contracts with the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, a public entity risk pool currently operating as a common risk management and insurance program providing insurance coverage in the following areas: general liability, automobile liability and physical damage, law enforcement liability, worker's compensation, real and personal property, mobile equipment, and errors and omissions liability. TML is a multi - employer group that provides for a combination of risk sharing among pool participants and stop loss coverage. Contributions are set annually by the provider. Liability by the City is generally limited to the contributed amounts. Annual contributions for the year ended September 30, 2017 were $435,914 for property and casualty and workers compensation coverage. There were no significant increases or decreases in coverage from fiscal year 2016. 58 w CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 REVENUES Taxes Permits and Fees Service Fees Fines and Fees Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES General Government: Council City Manager Municipal Court 311 Customer Relations Planning & Zoning Legal City Secretary Nondepartmental Community & Media Relations Records Management Variance With Schertz Magazine 392,668 2017 Final Budget - Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) 160,959 165,159 $ 19,912,226 $ 1.9,912,226 $ 19,450,338 $ (461,888) 1,283,660 1,455,660 2,367,929 912,269 1,523,530 1,523,530 2,107,844 584,31.4 1,232,858 1,232,858 1,021,965 (210,893) 318,000 378,000 307,809 (70,191) 60,800 60,800 128,158 67,358 561,502 627,502 603,477 (24,025) 24,892,576 25,190,576 25,987,520 796,944 5,829 Inspection 638,929 116,982 106,982 93,412 1.3,570 1,122,395 1,112,395 1,078,187 34,208 390,363 390,363 342,585 47,778 114,369 . 119,269 117,777 1,492 218,124 224,024 214,454 9,570 240,000 172,000 150,698 21,302 195,762 195,762 190,571 5,191 1,543,640 1,191,940 1,135,288 56,652 324,789 331,789 319,030 12,759 65,682 55,682 47,680 8,002 Schertz Magazine 392,668 392,668 349,950 42,71.8 Engineering 553,751 560,551 540,453 20,098 Geographic Information Systems 160,959 165,159 163,735 1,424 Citizens Assistance 245,260 312,545 298,164 14,381. Special Events 119,600 175,600 130,375 45,225 Total General Government 5,804,344 5,506,729 5,172,359 334,370 Public Safety: Police Department 6,994,853 7,021,097 6,870,568 150,529 Fire Department 3,963,560 4,082,360 4,076,531 5,829 Inspection 638,929 847,529 811,916 35,613 Marshal Service 503,837 503,837 481,980 21,857 Total Public Safety 12,101,179 12,454,823 12,240,995 213,828 Public Environment: Streets 1,133,776 1,267,162 1,264,787 2,375 Total Public Environment $ 1,133,776 $ 1,267,162 $ 1,264,787 $ 2,375 60 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL) GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 EXPENDITURES (Continued) Parks and Recreation: Parks Pools Community /Civic Center Total Parks and Recreation Cultural: Library Total Cultural Health: Animal Control Environmental Health Total Health Administration: Information Technology Human Resources Finance Purchasing & Asset Management Building Maintenance Fleet Service Interfund Charges Total Administration TOTAL EXPENDITURES Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 1,016,070 $ 1,082,749 717,978 657,278 1.64,216 154,216 1,900,764 1,896,743 865,661 865,661 9,056 Variance With 2017 Final Budget - Aetual Positive Amounts (Negative) $ 1,003,804 $ 78,945 9,056 28,222 7,289 36,927 2,642 144,101 204,879 1,992 2,669 1,992 2,669 568,209 602,834 555,661 47,173 219,645 219,645 204,879 14,766 787,854 822,479 760,540 61,939 1,570,102 1,582,166 1,535,541 46,625 470,531 457,569 428,739 28,830 602,032 602,032 580,203 21,829 201,620 191,620 1.91.,914 (294) 1,271,334 1,437,558 1,405,157 32,401 745,927 745,927 695,951 49,976 (2,415,755) (2,41.5,755) (2,415,755) - 2,445,791 2,601,117 2,421,750 179,367 25,039,369 25,453,714 24,515,065 938,649 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - BEGINNING (146,793) (263,138) 1,472,455 1,735,593 232,095 1,308,440 (72,450) (1,022,450) 68,385 (1,240,055) - 1,022,450 159,645 285,990 68,385 (217,605) 12,852 22,852 1,540,840 1,517,988 11,428,778 11,428,778 11,428,778 - FUND BALANCE - ENDING $11,441,630 $ 11,451,630 $ 12,969,61.8 $ 1,517,988 61 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES — BUDGET AND ACTUAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 REVENUES Taxes Investment Earnings TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: General Government Administration TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) ►_ . :► 1► I�� -IN I W.1110m, Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 3,692,710 $ 3,692,710 45,550 45,550 3,738,260 3,738,260 733,900 Variance With 2017 Final Budget - Actual Positive Amounts (Negative) $ 3,620,930 $ (71,780) 125,684 80,134 3,746,614 8,354 733,900 733,900 92,829 641,071 961,929 961,929 450,524 511,405 1,695,829 1,695,829 543,353 1,152,476 2,042,431 2,,042,431 3,203,261 1,160,830 788)_ (361,019) 5,769 (366,788) (361,019) 5,769 1,675,643 2,842,242 1,166,599 FUND BALANCE - BEGINNING 12,227,179 12,227,179 12,227,179 - FUND BALANCE - ENDING $ 13,902,822 $ 13,902,822 $ 15,069,421 $ 1,166,599 62 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE — BUDGET AND ACTUAL SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 Budgetary Information — The budget is prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The City maintains strict budgetary controls. The objective of these controls is to ensure compliance with legal provision embodied in the annual appropriated budget approved by the City Council and as such is a good management control device. Annual budgets are adopted for the general fund; debt service fund; hotel motel tax, park fund, tree mitigation; police forfeiture fund, library advisory board fund, and the historical committee fund. Project - length financial plans are adopted for capital projects funds. Of these budgets, only the General Fund, Debt Service and Economic Development Corporation are legally adopted. Budgetary preparation and control is exercised at the department level. Actual expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations at the fund level. The City did not exceed the budgeted expenditures in any funds with legally adopted budgets during 2017. The City does not use encumbrances. 63 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF CHANGES — NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS LAST THREE PLAN YEARS Total Pension Liability 2014 2015 2016 Service Cost $ 2,558,743 $ 2,724,337 $ . 2,855,745 Interest (on the Total Pension Liability) 3,245,266 3,556,428 3,763,562 Changes of Benefit Terms - - - Difference between Expected and Actual Experience (1.22,286) 120,434 139,216 Change of Assumptions - 59,193 - Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions (1,068,487) (1„570,211) (1,581,272) Net Change in Total Pension Liability 4,613,236 4,890,181 5,177,251 Total Pension Liability - Beginning 45,615,815 50,229,051 55,119,232 Total Pension Liability - Ending $ 50,229,051 $ 55,119,232 $ 60,296,483 Plan Fiduciary Net Position 2014 2015 2016 Contributions - Employer $ 2,403,929 $ 2,542,565 $ 2,627,335 Contributions - Employee 1,077,097 1,095,260 1,152,864 Net Investment Income 1,841,586 53,742 2,602,572 Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions (1,068,487) (1,570,211) (1,581,272) Administrative Expense (19,219) (32,727) (29,385) Other (1,580) (1,616) (1,583) Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 4,233,326 2,087,013 4,770,531 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning 32,179,518 36,412,844 38,499,857 Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Ending $ 36,412,844 $ 38,499,857 $ 43,270,388 Net Pension Liability - Ending $ 13,81.6,207 $ 16,619,375 $ 17,026,095 Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of Total Pension Liability 72.49% 69.85% 71.76% Covered Employee Payroll $ 15,389,154 $ 15,648,114 $ 16,478,620 Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of Covered Employee Payroll 89.78% 106.21% 103.32% Note: The schedule above reflects the changes in the net pension liability for the current year and the previous two plan years. GASB Statement No. 68 requires 10 fiscal years of data to be provided in this schedule. The City will build this schedule over the 10 -year period beginning December 31, 2014 as data becomes available. 64 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF CITY CONTRIBUTIONS LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS Actuarially Determined Contribution Contributions in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution Contribution Deficiency (Excess) Covered Employee Payroll Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Employee Payroll 2015 2016 2017 $ 2,487,856 $ 2,592,593 $ 2,756,511 2,487,856 2,592,593 2,756,511. $ 15,486,735 $ 16,175,988 $ 17,347,849 16.06% 16.03% 15.89% Note: The schedule above reflects the TMRS contributions made by the City for the current year and the previous two fiscal years. GASB Statement No. 68 requires 10 fiscal years of data to be provided in this schedule. The City will build this schedule over the 10 -year period beginning December 31, 2014 as data becomes available. Valuation Date: Actuarially determined contribution rates are calculated as of December 31 and become effective in January, thirteen (1.3) months later. Methods and Assumptions Used to Determine Contribution Rates: Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Amortization Method Level Percentage of Payroll, Closed Remaining Amortization Period 29 Years Asset Valuation Method 10 Year Smoothed Market; 15% Soft Corridor Inflation 150% Salary Increases 3.50% to 10.5% Including Inflation Investment Rate of Return 6.75% Retirement Age Experience -based table of rates that are specific to the City's plan of benefits. Last updated for the 2015 valuation pursuant to an experience study of the period 2010 - 2014. Mortality RP2000 Combined Mortality Table with blue Collar Adjustment with male rates multiplied by 109% and femal rates multiplied by 103% and projected on a fully generational basis with scale BB. 65 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN ANALYSIS OF FUNDING PROGRESS LAST TWO ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS 66 UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY AS A PERCENTAGE OF COVERED PAYROLL (b -a) /d 3.4% 6.7% UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACTUARIAL ACTUARIAL ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUE OF ACCRUED ACCRUED FUNDING COVERED VALUATION ASSETS LIABILITY* LIABILITY RATIO PAYROLL DATE (a) (b) (b -a) (a/b) (d) 12/31/2013 $ - $ 493,114 $ 493,114 0.0% $14,356,845 12/31/2015 $ - $ 1,055,757 $ 1,055,757 0.0% $15,648,114 66 UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY AS A PERCENTAGE OF COVERED PAYROLL (b -a) /d 3.4% 6.7% SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION • Comparative Statements • General Fund • Economic Development Corporation • Debt Service Fund • Capital Projects Fund Combining and Comparative Individual Fund Statements - Nonmajor Governmental Funds • Hotel Occupancy - will account for proceeds of hotel occupancy taxes to be used strictly for those kinds of programs that promote the tourism industry. • Park Fund - will account for revenues from developers' fees (in lieu of park land dedication), grants, and donations and is designed to monitor and manage improvement of park system. • Tree Mitigation Fund - will account for revenues from permits, grants and donations to preserve and replace trees in the City. • Treasury Forfeitures Fund - will account for ;revenue received from drug related cases in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Treasury department. • Justice Forfeitures Fund - will account for revenue received from drug related cases in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of the US Department of Justice. • State Forfeitures Fund - will account for revenue received from drug related cases in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of the State Forfeiture Program. • Library Advisory Board - to account for certain fees generated at the library to be used by the Board for general improvements to the Library. • Parks and Recreation Foundation - to account for revenues from events, fundraisers and donations to improve and maintain City parks. • Historical Committee Fund - will account for funds received for the preservation of the history of the city. a CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS GENERAL FUND SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances): Taxes Accounts and Other Inventory Prepaid Items Restricted Cash TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts Payable Accrued Salaries and Benefits Customer Deposits Due to Other Governments Unearned Revenue Total Liabilities 2017 2016 $ 2,062,393 $ 1,174,602 9,485,725 9,365,670 1,970,300 1,955,953 1,677,633 1,949,153 98,263 107,529 - 112,974 617,075 554,657 $ 15,220,538 $ 544,406 $ 1,000,892 653,700 552,820 54,200 48,067 19,149 120,321 35,346 39,572 1,231,717 1,761,672 Deferred Inflows of Resources: Unavailable Revenue 1,710,054 2,030,088 Fund Balance: Nonspendable: Inventory 98,263 107,529 Prepaid Items - 112,974 Restricted for: Police and Public Safety 101,842 218,144 Municipal Court 728,350 714,609 PEG Capital Fees 638,506 577,590 Animal Control 35,660 18,667 Veterans 4,796 4,985 Scholarships ' 77,458 63,048 Committed for Civic Center /CIED 454,376 342,519 Assigned for: Property Replacement 854,198 752,503 Special Events - 6,743 Unassigned 9,976,169 8,509,467 Total Fund Balance 12,969,618 11,428,778 TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE $ 15,911,389 $ 15,220,538 68 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 REVENUES Taxes Permits and Fees Service Fees Fines and Fees Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: General Government Public Safety Public Environment Parks and Recreation Cultural Health Administration Capital Outlay Debt Service: Principal Interest and Fiscal Charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES Excess (Deficiency) Over (Under) Expe OTHER FI Transfers In Transfers 01 TOTAL in Fund Balance (USES) Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 2017 2016 $ 1.9,450,338 $ 18,850,031 2,367,929 1,234,048 2,107,844 1,610,940 1,021,965 1,343,236 307,809 293,727 128,158 58,724 603,477 599,791. 25,987,520 23,990,497 5,171,635 11,846,184 1,128,979 1,682,955 901,992 672,934 2,395,926 644,773 33,1.74 36,513 24,515,065 4,323,209 11,010,802 1,007,326 1,173,070 843,643 480,175 2,557,257 498,251 33,175 38,214 21,965,122 1,472,455 2,025,375 68,385 3,019 (216,103) 68,385 (213,084) 1,540,840 1,812,291 11,428,778 9,616,487 Fund Balance at End of Year $ 12,969,618 $ 11,428,778 69 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances): Taxes Accounts and Other Prepaid Items TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities: Accounts Payable Accrued Salaries and Benefits Total Liabilities Fund Balance: Restricted for: Economic Develo ment 2017 2016 $ 893,858 $ 393,738 13,506,156 11,181,434 665,316 666,534 8,448 7,949 - 1,120 $ 15,073,778 $ 12,250,775 $ 3,940 $ 16,295 417 7,301 4,357 23,596 r Total Fund Balance TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE F ME 15,069,421 12,227,179 15,069,421 12,227,179 $ 15,073,778 $ 12,250,775 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 REVENUES Taxes Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Revenue TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: General Government Administration Debt Service: Principal Interest and Fiscal Charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of''Year 71 2017 2016 $ 3,620,930 $ 3,660,101 125,684 52,546 3,746,614 92,829 286,943 450,524 322,596 - 1.55,000 - 6,215 543,353 770,754 2,941,893 (361,019) (536,461) (361,019) (536,461) 2,842,242 2,405,432 12,227,179 9,821,747 $ 1.5,069,421 $ 12,227,179 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DEBT SERVICE FUND SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances): Taxes TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE Deferred Inflows of Resources: Unavailable Revenue Fund Balance: Restricted for: Debt Service Total Fund Balance TOTAL LIABILITIES, DEFERRED IN RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCI 72 2017 $ 59,148 1,390,934 82,550 $ 1,532,632 2016 $ 37,717 1,273,860 68,239 $ 1,379,816 68,239 1,450,082 1,311,577 1,450,082 1,311,577 $ 1,532,632 $ 1,379,816 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL DEBT SERVICE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (407,648) (407,648) (222,514) 185,134 55,106 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 407,648 407,648 361,019 (46,629) 356,119 Issuance of Refunding Debt - - - - 4,185,000 Premiums from Refunding Bonds - - - - 83,656 Payments to Refund Escrow Agents - - - - (4,215,482) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 407,648 407,648 361,019 (46,629) 409,293 Net Change in Fund Balance - - 138,505 138,505 464,399 FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING 1,311,577 1,311,577 1,311,577 - 847,178 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1,311,577 $ 1,311,577 S 1,450,082 $ 138,505 $ 1,311,577 73 Variance with 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Actual Original Final Amounts (Negative) Amounts REVENUES Property Taxes $ 6,102,433 $ 6,102,433 $ 6,149,844 $ 47,411 $ 5,810,724 Investment Earnings 4,500 4,500 47,758 43,258 34,438 Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 100,000 - - TOTAL REVENUES 6,206,933 6,206,933 6,297,602 90,669 5,845,162 EXPENDITURES Debt Service: Principal 3,810,000 3,810,000 4,440,0000 (630,000) 3,852,800 Interest and Fiscal Charges 1,777,092 1,777,092 ' 2,077,166 (300,074) 1,852,482 Bond Issue Costs 1,027,489 1,027,489 2,950 1,024,539 84,774 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 6,614,581 6,614581 6,520,116 94,465 5,790,056 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (407,648) (407,648) (222,514) 185,134 55,106 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 407,648 407,648 361,019 (46,629) 356,119 Issuance of Refunding Debt - - - - 4,185,000 Premiums from Refunding Bonds - - - - 83,656 Payments to Refund Escrow Agents - - - - (4,215,482) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 407,648 407,648 361,019 (46,629) 409,293 Net Change in Fund Balance - - 138,505 138,505 464,399 FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING 1,311,577 1,311,577 1,311,577 - 847,178 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1,311,577 $ 1,311,577 S 1,450,082 $ 138,505 $ 1,311,577 73 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Receivables (net of allowances): Accounts and Other U Li E I Ft I 101 II_11 NM, 33" CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 2017 2016 1,753,815 $ 2,908,320 1.5,546,171 11,573,240 - „18,781 17,299,986 $ 14,500,341 74 2,718,608 116,040 2,834,648 11,665,693 1.1,665,693 14,500,341 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES 2017 2016 $ 89,264 $ 107,767 123,920 34,384 745,050 929,250 958,234 1,071,401 m 9,641,290 364,584 10,005,874 (8,934,473) 10,750,000 506,776 452,610 (33,807) 11,675,579 2,741,106 8,924,587 11,665,693 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents Investments Accounts Receivable, Net of Allowance Taxes Other TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities Accounts Payable Total Liabilities Special Revenue Funds Hotel Occupancy Park Tree Treasury Fund Fund Mitigation Forfeitures $ 183,537 $ 96,587 $ 19,515 $ 21,015 1,295,228 330,364 312,398 - 33,548 - - - $ 1,512,313 $ 426,951 $ 331,913 $ 21,015 $ 8,440 $ 59,139 - 8,440 59,139 - - Fund Balance Restricted for: Tourism Development 1,503,873 - - - Tree Mitigation - - 331,913 - Parks - 367,812 - - Police Forfeiture - - - 21,015 Library - - Historical Committee - - - - Total Fund Balances 1,503,873 367,812 331,913 21,015 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ 1,51.2,313 $ 426,951 $ 331.,913 $ 21,01.5 76 Special Revenue Funds Library Parks & Historical Justice State Advisory Recreation Committee Forfeitures Forfeitures Board Foundation Fund Totals $ 132,658 $ 11,270 $ 22,382 $ - $ 9,457 $ 496,42 248,146 - 45,611 - - 2,231,747' - - - - 33,548 $ 380,804 $ 11,270 $ 67,993 $ - $ 9,457 2,761,716 125 $ - $ 188 $ 67,892 125 - 188 67,892 - 1,503,873 - - 331,913 - - - - 367,812 380,804 11,270 - - - 413,089 - - 67,868 - - 67,868 - - - - 9,269 9,269 380,804 11,270 67,868 - 9,269 2,693,824 $ 380,804 $ 11,270s $ 67,993 $ - $ 9,457 $ 2,761,71.6 0 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES — NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 REVENUES Occupancy Tax Permits and Fees Service Fees Fines and Fees Investment Earnings Miscellaneous TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: General Government Pub,; c„c .— Park Cult Adn Capit T OTH Tram T S1 Fund Fund Special Revenue Funds Hotel Occupancy Park Tree Treasury Fund Fund Mitigation Forfeiture $ 499,466 $ - $ - $ - - 98,000 74,116 - - - - 51143 12,295 3,716 3;312 46 511,761 101,716 77,428 5,189 127,545 78 23,090 (8,473) 5,189 23,090 (8,473) 5,189 344,722 340,386 15,826 367,812 $ 331,913 $ 21,015 0 (2,410) 381,157 (68,385) (68,385) (2,410) 312,772 11,679 2,381,052 $ 9,269 $ 2,693,824 Special Revenue Funds Library Parks & Historical Justice State Advisory Recreation Committee Forfeiture Forfeiture Board Foundation Fund Totals 499;466 - - - - - 172,116 - - 23,381 575 499 24,455 179,308 11,205 - - - 195,656 2,972 28 516 12 22,897 - - 108 101 - 209 182,280 11,233 24,005 688 499 914,799 - - - - 2,909 130,454 19,418 5,034 - - - 24,452 - - - 97,572 - 202,960 - - 19,878 - - 19,878 - - - - - 66,405 24,154 6,200 - - - 89,493 43,572 11,234 19,878 97,572 2,909 533,642 0 (2,410) 381,157 (68,385) (68,385) (2,410) 312,772 11,679 2,381,052 $ 9,269 $ 2,693,824 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL HOTEL OCCUPANCY FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) . REVENUES Occupancy Tax Investment Earnings TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: General Government Administration T OTI3 (U', Tran: 7 S Net t " I� I I 146,590 146,590 80 Variance with Final Budget- 2016 Positive Actual (Negative) ! Amounts $ (109,836) $ 544,871 10,145 3,953 (99,691) 548,824 19,045 179,731 (66,405) - (47,360) 179,731 317,811 (147,051) 369,093 - 114,405 (48,000) - 114,405 (48,000) 317,811 (32,646) 321,093 1,186,062 - 864,969 5 1,503,873 $ (32,646) _$_1,186,062 2017 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts $ 609,302 $ 609,302 $ 499,466 2,150 2,150 12,295 611,452 611,452 51.1,761 146,590 146,590 80 Variance with Final Budget- 2016 Positive Actual (Negative) ! Amounts $ (109,836) $ 544,871 10,145 3,953 (99,691) 548,824 19,045 179,731 (66,405) - (47,360) 179,731 317,811 (147,051) 369,093 - 114,405 (48,000) - 114,405 (48,000) 317,811 (32,646) 321,093 1,186,062 - 864,969 5 1,503,873 $ (32,646) _$_1,186,062 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL PARK FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) EXPENDITURES Current: Parks and Recreation Capil T Exec Ov OTIJ Tran 7 Net t FUN FUN 15,000 22,700 19,487 3,213 147 59,139 108,861 22,857 78,626 112,074 23,004 81 23,090 (67,540) 110,594 - 44,450 - - 44,450 - 23,090 (23,090) 110,594 344,722 - 234,128 367,812 $ (23,090) $ 344,722 Variance with 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Actual Original Final Amounts (Negative) Amounts REVENUES Licenses and Permits $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 98,000 $ (47,000) $ 132,000 Investment Earnings 1,250 1,250 3,716 2,466 728 Miscellaneous - - - - 870 TOTAL REVENUES 146,250 146,250 101,716 (44,534) 133,598 EXPENDITURES Current: Parks and Recreation Capil T Exec Ov OTIJ Tran 7 Net t FUN FUN 15,000 22,700 19,487 3,213 147 59,139 108,861 22,857 78,626 112,074 23,004 81 23,090 (67,540) 110,594 - 44,450 - - 44,450 - 23,090 (23,090) 110,594 344,722 - 234,128 367,812 $ (23,090) $ 344,722 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL TREE MITIGATION FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) EXPENDITURES Current: Parks and Recreation 142,000 142,000 Variance with 56,099 119,564 2017 Final Budget- 2016 85,901 Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Actual Original Final Amounts (Negative) Amounts REVENUES (54,950) (8,473) 46,477 9,237 Licenses and Permits $ 85,300 $ 85,300 $ 74,116 $ (11,184) $ 127,288 Miscellaneous 1,750 1,750 3,312 1,562 1,513 TOTAL REVENUES 87,050 87,050 77,428 (9,622) 128,801. EXPENDITURES Current: Parks and Recreation 142,000 142,000 85,901 56,099 119,564 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 142,000 142,000 85,901 56,099 119,564 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (54,950) (54,950) (8,473) 46,477 9,237 OTHER FINANCING USES Transfers In 54,950 54,950 - (54,950) - TOTAL OTHER FINANCING 54,950` 54,950 - (54,950) - Net Change in Fund Balance - - (8,473) (8,473) 9,237 FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING I a[ 1j,"I atyn I_Vrela91a11lel 340,386 340,386 - 331,149 86 $ 340,386 $ 331,913 $ (8,473) $ 340,386 82 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL TREASURY FORFEITURES FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) Variance with 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Actual Original Final Amounts (Negative)' Amounts REVENUES Fines and Fees $ - $ - $ 5,143 $ Investment Earnings - TOTAL REVENUES - EXP Curd Pub T Net 1 FUN FUN 83 5,143 $ - 46 2 2 5,189 2 - 15,824 5,189 $ 15,826 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL JUSTICE FORFEITURES FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) REVENUES Fines and Fees Investment Earnings TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: Public Safety Capital Outlay T Exce Over OTH Tran: T Net FUN FUN Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 47,000 $ 47,000 $ 179,308 $ - - 2,972 47,000 47,000 182,280 Variance with 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Actual Positive Actual Amounts (Negative) ' Amounts (100,000) (100,000) 84 $ 71,378 1,259 72,637 19,418 (119,418) 6,637 24,154 (24,154) 28,830 43,572 (143,572) 35,467 138,708 (8,292) 37,170 (68,385) (68,385) (68,385) (68,385) 70,323 (76,677) 37,170 310,481 - 273,311 6 380,804 $ (76,677) $ 310,481 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL STATE FORFEITURES FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) REVENUES Fines and Fees Investment Earnings TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current: Public Safety TOTAL EXPENDITURES Net 1 FUN FUN 2017 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts $ - $ - $ 11,205 - 28 - 11,233 85 Variance with Final Budget - Positive (Negative) $ 1 1,205 28 11,233 2016 Actual Amounts 26,860 5,034 (5,034) 31,328 1.1,234 (11,234) 31,328 (1) (1) (4,467) 11,271 - 15,738 6 11,270 $ (1) $ 11,271 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) REVENUES Service Fees Investment Earnings Miscellaneous T EXP Curd Cul I Net 1 FUN FUN :. 2,122 25,519 Variance with 25,519 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Actual Original Final Amounts (Negative) ' Amounts $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 23,381 $ 1,381 $ 21,846 60 60 516 456 241. 1,000 1,000 108 (892) 390 :. 2,122 25,519 2,122 25,519 3,067 (3,042) - 66,783 3,067 $ 63,741 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL HISTORICAL COMMITTEE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) REVENUES Sale of Merchandise TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current General Government TOTAL EXPENDITURES Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1,000 11,750 11,750 11,750 11,750 Over (Under) Expenditures (10,750) (10,750), OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 10,750 10,750 _ TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 10,750 10,750 Net Change in Fund Balance - - (2,410) (2,410) FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING + 11,679 11,679 11,679 8,841 3,835 8,841 3,835 8,340 (2,160) (10,750) 3,835 (10,750) 3,835 (2,410) 1,675 10,004 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1.1,679 $ 11,679 $ 9,269 $ (2,410) _$____11,679 M Variance with 2017 Final Budget- 2016 Actual Positive Actual Amounts (Negative)' Amounts 499 $ (501) 1,675 499 (501) 1,675 (2,410) (2,410) FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING + 11,679 11,679 11,679 8,841 3,835 8,841 3,835 8,340 (2,160) (10,750) 3,835 (10,750) 3,835 (2,410) 1,675 10,004 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1.1,679 $ 11,679 $ 9,269 $ (2,410) _$____11,679 M CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET TO ACTUAL PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 (WITH COMPARATIVE ACTUAL TOTALS FOR 2016) REVENUES Charges and Fees at Events Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Income and Donations TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current Parks and Recreation Capital Outlay Tnm A 7 rV"Tr1►T717TTTn1r L1 Exec ON OTE (U Tran 7 S Net I FUN FUN Budgeted Amounts Original Final Q e 2017 Actual Amounts - $ 575 - 12 - 101 $ 575 688 Variance with Final Budget- 2016 Positive Actual (Negative) Amounts $ 575 $ 154,860 12 50 101. 23,296 688 178,206 - 97,572 (97,572) 235,575 - - 1,170 97,x,I (97,572) 236,745 :: (96,884) (96,884) (58,539) - 48,000 - 48,000 (96,884) (96,884) (10,539) 96,884 - 107,423 $ (96,884) $ 96,884 STATISTICAL SECTION This part of the City of Schertz's annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City's overall financial health. Financial Trends (Tables 1 through 4) Net Position by Component Change in Net Position Fund Balances, Governmental Funds Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds These schedules contain trend information to help reader understand how the City's financial performance and well -being have changed over time. Revenue Capacity (Tables S through 12) Tax Revenues by Source, Governmental Funds Total Water and Sewer Consumption and Rates Principal Water and Sewer Consumers Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates Principal Property Taxpayers Property Tax Levies anc " Taxable Assessed Value These schedules c generate its prope Debt Capacity Tables 1 Ratios of Outstanding D Ratios of General Bond( Direct and Overlapping Debt Margin Informatio Pledged Revenue Cover These schedules levels of outstan Demographic Demographic Principal Em ents. ?rs affecting the City's ability to ,ent information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future. on (Tables 18 through 19 Statistics offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand how the activities take place and to help make comparisons over time and with other Operating Information (Tables 20 through 22) Full -time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Operating Indicators by Function /Program Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program These schedules contain information about the City's operations and resources to help the reader understand how the City's financial information relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. M CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS NET POSITION, BY COMPONENT LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Governmental Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets Restricted Unrestricted Total Governmental Activities Net Position Business -Type Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets Restricted Unrestricted Total Business -Type Activities Net Position Primary Government Net Investment in Capital Assets Restricted Unrestricted Total Primary Government Net Position Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 $ 47,327,175 $ 57,324,482 $ 54,010,139 $ 55,415,699 1,058,514 1,170,786 897,324 2,089,971 11,029,326 3,650,287 7,548,859 7,370,101 $ 59,415,015 $ 62,145,555 $ 62,456,322 $ 64,875,771 $ 41,350,184 $ 50,047,301 $ 50,778,490 $ 51,838,589 10,286,447 3,633,244 4,217,098 7,441,722 $ 51,636,631 $ 53,680,545 $ 54,995,588 $ 59,280,311 $ 88,677,359 107,371,783 $ 104,788,629 $ 107,254,288 1,058,514 1,170,786 897,324 2,089,971. 21,315,773 7,283,531 11,765,957 14,811,823 $ 111,051,646 $ 115,826,100 $ 117,451,910 $ 124,156,082 Note — GASB Statement No. 68 has been prosper 90 implemented in year -end 2015. Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TABLE 1 2017 $ 56,616,809 $ 57,543,618 $ 62,792,671 $ 68,125,738 $ 74,237,004 $ 84,537,238 1,917,098 7,788,354 10,401,728 13,343,280 17,095,325 20,437,116 8,907,326 6,645,418 8,613,239 1,640,519 2,231,341 1,673,567 $ 67,441,233 $ 71,977,390 $ 81,807,638 $ 83,109,537 $ 93,563,670` $ 106,647,921 $ 50,161,157 $ 53,071,836 $ 53,674,437 $ 59,625,205 $ 64,210,231 $ 70,361,035 11,577,645 11,902,282 16,450,988 14,243,922 15,737,470 20,781,291 $ 61,738,802 $ 64,974,118 $ 70,125,425 $ 73,869,127 $ 79,947,701 $ 91,142,326 $ 106,777,966 $ 110,615,454 $ 116,467,108 $ 127,750,943 $ 138,447,235 $ 154,898,273 1,917,098 7,788,354 1.0,401,728 13,343 „280 17,095,325 20,437,116 20,484,971 18,547,700 25,064,227 15,884,441 17,968,81.1 22,454,858 $ 129,180,035 $ 136,951,508 $ 151,933,063 $ X156,978,664 $ 173,511,371 $ 197,790,247 91 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS CHANGE IN NET POSITION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 . Expenses Governmental Activities General Government $ 7,093,762 $ 7,987,977 $ 7,892,516 $ 8,112,954 Public Safety 7,227,406 7,755,056 7,897,298 8,390,740 Public Environment 2,300,425 2,740,755 2,966,642 3,152,119 Parks and Recreation 1,184,866 1,193,525 1,593,075 1,673,098 Cultural 492,991 769,928 809,323 876,339 Health 330,736 377,1.25 345,455 374,516 Administration 1,364,194 734,584 1,084,430 1,321,055 Interest and Other Fees 1,984,151 1,818,984 2,230,452 2,251,472 Total Governmental Activities Expenses 21,978,531 23,377,934 24,83,9,191 26,152,293 Business -Type Activities 5,190,039 2,241,726 973,437 2,175,889 Water and Sewer 12,379,584 13,568,065 14,434,709 15,280,871 EMS 2,976,112 3,365,544 3,690,007 3,659,031 Total Business -Type Activities 15,355,696 16,933,609 18,124,716 18,939,902 Total Primary Government Expenses $ 37,334,227 $ 40,311,543 $ 42,943,907 $ 45,092,195 Program Revenues Governmental Activities Charges for Service: General Government Public Safety Parks and Recreation Cultural Program Revenues Total Primary Government Program Revenues $ `1,497,472 $ 1,720,279 $ 1,905,600 $ 1,495,563 1,643,635 1,481,004 1,986,536 2,815,029 155,168 273,917 536,609 524,443 219,749 219,029 265,714 228,242 41,390 33,930 36,728 39,743 595,401 1,044,884 587,643 717,105 12,595,635 3,023,377 1,276,465 2,998,115 16,748,450 7,796,420 6,595,295 8,818,240 13,620,440 14,668,137 15,147,332 17,073,075 3,150,428 2,889,518 3,061,414 3,564,852 5,190,039 2,241,726 973,437 2,175,889 21,960,907 19,799,381 19,182,183 22,813,816 $ 38,709,357 $ 27,595,801 $ 25,777,478 $ 31,632,056 Note — GAS13 Statement No. 68 has been prospectively implemented in year -end 2015. 92 Fiscal Year 2012 . 2013 2014 TABLE 2 2015 . 2016 . 2017 . $ 7,802,092 $ 7,066,087 $ 6,958,530 $ 6,443,227 $ 6,557,778 $ 6,253,926 9,103,676 9,567,595 10,025,703 10,836,712 12,141,968 ;13,061,120 3,586,087 3,622,834 3,740,538 3,876,644 4,147,653 4,460,540 1,584,605 1,807,559 1,807,136 2,164,604 2,034,964 2,859,974 916,967 907,676 870,159 892,194 954,871 1,004,747 357,658 344,647 407,114 470,468 570,204 776,494 1,117,044 1,180,656 1,942,312 1,845,877 1,954,276 3,052,102 2,302,912 3,340,951 2,352,856 2,226,635 2,240,783 2,355,714 26,771,041 27,838,005 28,104,348 28,756,361 30,602,497 33,824,617 16,349,967 16,954,871 17,762,116 18,440,959 20,269,111 21,346,078 3,758,425 3,959,445 4,268,125 4,719,526 5,004,110 6,006,178 20,108,392 20,914,316 22,030,241 23,1,60,485 25,273,221 27,352,256 $ 46,879,433 $ 48,752,321 $ 50,134,589 $ 51,916,846 $ 55,875,718 $ 61,176,873 $ 2,286,488 $ 2,230,800 $ 1,974,637 $ 1,840,547 $ 1,507,252 $ 874,737 2,216,385 2,516,547 2,536,476 2,603,476 2,415,537 4,131,548 541,512 721,222 917,639 794,003 788,727 544,460 279,267 305,932 309,897 325,178 326,079 330,412 36,746 38,149 32,429 26,744 30,308 29,742 764,997 234,084 220,264 336,252 342,485 552,878 1,178,573 1,531,740 5,756,456 5,509,530 6,227,664 10,043,483 7,303,968 7,578,474 11,747,798 11,435,730 11,638,052 16,507,260 17,411,568 17,696,327 19,147,872 20,700,369 22,003,794 25,390,713 3,561,114 4,459,600 4,533,753 4,415,126 5,921,223 6,366,894 828,853 1,301,235 2,809,110 4,158,552 2,831,126 6,111,474 21,801,535 23,457,162 26,490,735 29,274,047 30,756,143 37,869,081 $ 29,105,503 $ 31,035,636 $ 38,238,533 $ 40,709,777 $ 42,394,195 $ 54,376,341 93 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS CHANGE IN NET POSITION (CONTINUED) LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 . Net (Expenses) Revenue Governmental Activities $ (5,230,081) $ (15,581,514) Business -Type Activities 6,605,211 2,865,772 Total Primary Government Net Expenses $ 1,375,130 $ (12,715,742) Governmental Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position Governmental Activities Taxes: Ad Valorem Sales Franchise Fees Hotel /Motel Mixed Drink Bingo Unrestricted Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Transfers Total Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities Interest and Investment Earnings Miscellaneous Transfers Total Business -Type Activities Total Primary Government Changes In Net Positi Government Activities Business -Type Activiti Total Primary Governr $ 7,841,928 6,175,759 1,240,642 273,558 32,364 4,751 1,310,310 293,763 17,173,075 ,121 701,716 $ 17,874,791 $ 11,942,994 7,306,927 $ 19,249,921 94 $ 8,980,102 6,017,782 1,462,199 305,073 31,790 5,105 364,648 84,748 1,060,607 18,312,054 128,233 110,516 (1,060,607) (821,858) $ 17,490,196 $ 2,730,540 2,043,914 $ 4,774,454 $ (18,223,896) $ (17,334,053) 1,057,467 3,873,914 $ (17,166,429) $ (13,460,139) 6,240,749 1,448,620 348,1.47 32,144 4,651 117,776 611,510 15,421 18,534,663 36,824 236,173 (15,421) 257,576 $ 18,792,239 $ 310,767 1,315,043 $ 1,625,810 $ 10,280,768 7,054,394 1,542,046 391,181. 33,630 2,173 48,235 316,840 84,235 19,753,502 37,950 457,094 (84,235) 410,809 $ 20,164,311 $ 2,419,449 4,284,723 $ 6,704,172 TABLE 2 (Continued) Fiscal Year 2012 . 2013 2014 2015 . 2016 . 2017 . $ (19,467,073) $ (20,259,531) $ (16,356,550) $ (17,320,631) $ (18,964,445) $ (17,317,357) 1,693,143 2,542,846 4,460,494 6,113,562 5,482,922 10,516,825 $ (17,773,930) $ (17,716,685) $ (11,896,056) $ (11,207,069) $ (13,481,523) $ (6,800,532) $ 11,298,204 $ 12,359,146 $ 12,794,172 $ 1.4,139,037 $ 15,131,997 $ 16,166,006 7,968,21.2 9,637,097 10,553,382 10,315,125 10,921,489 10,844,503 1,647,71.2 1,681,079 2,073,162 2,263,783 2,250,815 2,208,373 470,290 503,267 552,570 563,734 544,871 499,466 28,586 30,421 39,917 43,656 43,073 42,699 60,265 54,270 43,279 56,820 187,847 448,408 621,560 505,268 180,316 197,881 309,275 182,754 (62,294) 25,140 (50,000) ; = (42,235) 29,211 9,399 22,032,535 24,795,688 26,186,798 27,537,801 29,418,578 30,401,608 36,409 53,089 31,810 47,728 102,642 211,466 666,645 664,521 609,003 344,731 522,221 475,733 62,294 (25,1.40) 50,000 42,235 (29,211) (9,399) 765,348 692,470 690,813 434,694 595,652 677,800 $ 22,797,883 $ 25,488,158 $ 26,877,611 $ 27,972,495 $ 30,014,230 $ 31,079,408 $ 2,565,462 $ 4,536,157 $ 9,830,248 $ 10,217,170 $ 10,454,133 $ 13,084,251 2,458,491 „ 3,235,316 5,151,307 6,548,256 6,078,574 11,194,625 $ 5,023,953 $ 7,771,473 $ 14,981,555 $ 16,765,426 $ 16,532,707 $ 24,278,876 95 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Nonspendable Fund Balance: Inventory Prepaid Items Note Receivable Total Nonspendable Fund Balance Restricted Fund Balance: Police and Public Safety Municipal Court Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 . $ 46,014 $ 44,217 $ 46,473 $ 43,504 - - 150,000 120,080 46,014 44,217 196,473! 163,584 394,122 355,451 421,265 403,799 269,961 332,1.17 402,744 459,244 - - - 317,453 16,416,440 14,342,553 3,914,323 1.0,219,300 429,289 444,369 286,215 117,250 502,883 180,710 250,379 301,517 271,071 191,834 164,424 173,999 169,529 120,501 79,317 84,329 68,207 163,661 200,359 231,686 2,331,951; 2,543,010 3,548,067 3,394,850 Total Governmental Funds 9,267,093 1.5,703,427 202,341 202,723 142,465 93,447 - 162,113 9,940 9,940 1,372,779 1,899,105 $ 26,673,130 $ 20,202,136 $ 11,191,091 $ 18,234,339 96 TABLE 3 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 . 2016 . 2017 . $ 63,556 $ 50,768 $ 88,518 $ 101,084 $ 107,529 $ 98,263 2,367 754,443 21,735 16,000 112,974 - 120,080 120,080 - - - - 186,003 925,291 110,253 117,084 220,503 98,263 338,118 496,890 529,264 494,337 555,722 514,931 527,513 646,422 628,459 683,558 714,609 728,350 409,870 456,175 489,509 509,535 577,590 638,506 17,104,595 15,360,800 9,600,028 8,924,587 11,665,693, 16,915,997 227,674 517,199 625,435 847,178 1,311,577 1,450,082 390,561 470,250 501,996 848,969 1,1,86,062 1,503,873 217,600 157,659 359,205 331,149 340,386 331,913 90,718 136,647 304,655 341,551 441,606 367,812 65,409 77,554 78,098 76,787 75,420 77,137 4,366,005 6,022,128 7,792,578 9,821,747 12,227,179 15,069,421 - - - - 18,667 35,660 - - - - 4,985 4,796 - - 54,176 60,944 63,048 77,458 23,738,063 24,341,724 20,963,403 22,940,342 29,182,544 37,715,936 - 165,000 31,718 - 342,519 454,376 - 1.65,000 31,718 - 342,519 454,376 322,656 456,034 694,916 785,005 752,503 854,198 92,555 99,770 ' 31,177 6,657 6,743 - 243,546 145,167 - - - - 11,090 - - - - - 669,847 700,971 726,093 791,662 759,246 854,198 2,560,667 4,206,734 5,587,262 7,280,240 8,509,467 9,976,169 $ 27,154,580 $ 30,339,720 $ 27,418,729 $ 31,129,328 $ 39,014,279 $ 49,098,942 97 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Bonds & Debt Issuances Refunding Bond Issuance Premium (Discount) on Bond Issue Payment to Refund Agent Transfers In Transfers (Out) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE Debt Service as a percentage of Noncapital Expenditures • •11 ill 9,681,678 1,418,294 8,206,572 283,000 593,294 2,778,593 Fiscal Year 348,846 (593,294) 2008 2009 2010 2011 . REVENUES 1,433,715 8,573,807 Taxes $ 15,583,058 $ 16,786,590 $ 17,811,547 $ 19,309,675 Permits and Fees 992,953 822,105 1,160,197 1,776,292 Service Fees 1,018,197 973,781 1,492,130 1,645,489 Fines and Fees 1,387,677 1,517,821 1,655,183 1,452,610 Intergovernmental 4,376,072 1,444,966 570,386 1,216,211 Other Revenue 1,864,877 1,066,097 1,161,182 603,498 TOTAL REVENUES 25,222,834 22,611,360 23,850,625 26,003,775 EXPENDITURES Current: General Government 6,184,705 6,765,315 6,989,561 7,164,667 Public Safety 6,638,352 7,235,501 7,409,720 7,885,119 Public Environment 745,307 884,158 816,939 846,150 Parks and Recreation 800,079 869,166 1,178,455 1,195,171 Cultural 667,995 821,048 872,668 937,611 Health 295,156 348,448 331,860 360,746 Administration 1,517,785 941,675 1,251,368 1,506,831 Capital Outlay 19,189,505 14,963,950 11,347,876 2,956,511 Debt Service: Principal 2,025,043 4,816,928 1,893,086 2,371,070 Interest and Fiscal Charges 1,617,876 1,987,384 2,183,852 2,066,221 Bond Issue Costs 122,290 191,066 20,000 244,237 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 39,804,093 39,824,639 34,295,385 27,534,334 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (14,581,259) (17,213,279) (10,444,760) (1,530,559) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Bonds & Debt Issuances Refunding Bond Issuance Premium (Discount) on Bond Issue Payment to Refund Agent Transfers In Transfers (Out) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE Debt Service as a percentage of Noncapital Expenditures • •11 ill 9,681,678 1,418,294 8,206,572 283,000 593,294 2,778,593 242,539 348,846 (593,294) (1,717,986) (227,118) (264,611) 9,900,000 10,742,285 1,433,715 8,573,807 $ (4,681,259) $ (6,470,994) $ (9,011,045) $ 7,043,248 • 14.6% 26.1% 17.7% 17.4% l Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 . 2016 . 2017 . $ 21,401,991 $ 24,181,863 $ 26,021,730 $ 27,348,297 $ 28,865,727 $ 29,720,578 1,363,461 1,609,954 1,805,047 1,731,302 1,493,336 2,540,045 1,547,007 1,739,387 1,763,964 1,797,151 1,789,321 2,132,299 2,027,613 1,927,744 1,750,311 1,534,588 1,441,474 1,217,621 1,000,413 492,332 221,769 393,607 401,494 397,073 969,921 767,110 671,731 689,805 1,741,436 1,897,153 28,310,406 30,718,390 32,234,552 33,494,750 35,732,788 37,904,769 7,094,834 6,311,276 5,981,439 5,582,441 5,657,998 5,394,918 8,690,849 9,113,840 9,409,894 10,158,401 11,048,767 11,870,636 976,327 951,528 1,012,607 952,663 1,007,326 1,128,979 1,398,692 1,412,329 1,338,232 1,658,197 1,528,356 1,885,915 845,124 840,595 815,691 821,146 869,162 921,870 346,318 341,961 394,918 404,008 480,175 672,934 1,249,557 1,289,078 2,270,041 2,056,646 2,015,573 2,912,855 1,299,843 3,277,397 8,000,467 2,314,668 10,1.92,398 5,492,196 2,704,898 3,217,325 3,695,597 3,91.8,008 4,040,975 4,473,174 2,313,51.0 2,381,1.71 2,108,610 2,112,746 1,896,911 2,113,679 254,971 31,750 165,650 7,992 449,358 214,280 27,174,923 29,168,250 35,193,146 29,986,916 39,186,999 37,081,436 1,135,483 1,550,141 (2,958,594) 3,507,834 (3,454,211) 823,333 14,370,000 1,635,000 8,583,715 245,000 10,750,000 8,870,000 - - - - 4,185,000 - 175,473 - 686,137 - 590,432 381,931. (6,698,421) - (9,182,250) - (4,215,482) - 139,635 788,084 1,243,833 989,120 863,583 438,803 (201,929) (788,084) (1,293,832) (1,031,355) (834,371) (429,404) 7,784,758 1,635,000 37,603 202,765 11,339,162 9,261,330 $ 8,920,241 $ 3,185,140 $ (2,920,991) $ 3,710,599 $ 7,884,951 $ 10,084,663 19.5% 21.6% 21.3% 213% 20.5% 20.4% 99 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TAX REVENUE BY SOURCE — GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Mixed Hotel Total Year Property Sales & Use Franchise Beverage Bin oo Occupancy Revenue 2017 $ 16,125,537 $ 10,844,503 $ 2,208,373 $ 42,668 $ 31 $ 499,466 $ 29,720,578 2016 15,105,480 10,921,489 2,250,815 43,072 1 544,870 28,865,727 2015 14,161,999 10,315,125 2,263,783 43,553 103 563,734 27,348,297 2014 12,802,668 10,553,382 2,073,162 39,917 31 552,570 26,021,730 2013 12,329,999 9,637,097 1,681,079 30,421 - 503,267 24,181,863 2012 11,287,1.91 7,968,212 1,647,712 28,586 - 470,290 21,401,991 2011 10,286,251 7,054,394 1,542,046 33,630 2,173 391,1.81 19,309,675 2010 9,737,236 6,240,749 1,448,620 32,144 4,651 348,1.47 1.7,811,547 2009 8,964,642 6,017,781 1,462,199 31,790 5,105 305,073 1.6,786,590 2008 7,855,984 6,175,759 1,240,642 32,364 4,751 273,558 1.5,583,058 11 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TOTAL WATER AND SEWER CONSUMPTION AND RATES LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2017 . 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Total Water & Sewer Consumption (In Gallons) 1,583,462,300 1,509,250,000 1,472,948,300 1,543,351,600 1,550,039,700 1,604,952,300 1,676,323,900 1,231,376,600 1,511,567,900 855,779,200 101 Water & Sewer Base Rate 23.19 20.89 19.71 19.32 18.94 18.94 18.94 18.94 18.94 15..94 Water & Sewer Initial Rate Per 1,000 Gallons $ 2.86 2.58 2.43 2.39 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.25 2.16 1.92 Consumers Caterpillar Inc. Scenic Hill Lawn Care Schertz 1518 Beck Readymix Concrete Pecan Grove TX LLC Sycamore Creek Apartments Big Time Management Properties Sebastian Apartments Waterford Ridge Apartments Wal -mart Supercenter Beck Readymix Prologis Trust Pecan Grove Investments Landscape of Texas AOH- Vantage at Schertz, LLC Lack's Legacy Oaks Apartments Samuel Clemens High Schools TOTAL Total City Water Consumption CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS PRINCIPAL WATER AND SEWER CONSUMERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO 0.37% 5,:831,400 11,685,700 9,139,400 7,751,000 6,946,900 6 162 100 5,644,100 5,236,200 4,110,800 97,042,500 < 3.79% 67,221,600 1,609,793,100 1,446,023,900 1® 6 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 0.40% 0.81% 0,63% 0.54% 0.48% 0.43% 0.39% 0.36% 0.28% 4.65% 2017 Total Percentage of Water Percentage of Consumption Water (in Gallons) Rank 18,837,200 1 12,896,100 2 12,586,700 3 10,546,200 4 8,132,300 5 7,871,300 6 7,372,600 7 6,740,000 8 6,131,700 9 5,928,400 10 0.37% 5,:831,400 11,685,700 9,139,400 7,751,000 6,946,900 6 162 100 5,644,100 5,236,200 4,110,800 97,042,500 < 3.79% 67,221,600 1,609,793,100 1,446,023,900 1® 6 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 0.40% 0.81% 0,63% 0.54% 0.48% 0.43% 0.39% 0.36% 0.28% 4.65% 2008 Percentage of Total Percentage of Total City Water Total City Water Consumption Water Consumption (in Gallons) Rank Consumption 1.17% 0.80% 0.51% 0.49% 4,714,000 9 0.33% 0.46% 0.00% 0.37% 5,:831,400 11,685,700 9,139,400 7,751,000 6,946,900 6 162 100 5,644,100 5,236,200 4,110,800 97,042,500 < 3.79% 67,221,600 1,609,793,100 1,446,023,900 1® 6 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 0.40% 0.81% 0,63% 0.54% 0.48% 0.43% 0.39% 0.36% 0.28% 4.65% Source NOTES: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS ASSESSED VALUE AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year Ended Total Taxable Total Direct September 30, Assessed Value Tax Rate 2017 $ 3,647,504,903 0.4911 2016 3,375,850,131 0.4911 2015 3,037,267,611 0.4974 2014 2,752,562,574 0.4974 2013 2,600,365,551 0.4999 2012 2,411,270,623 0.4843 2011 2,363,893,708 0.4493 2010 2,342,355,490 0.4342 2009 2,230,825,045 0.4090 2008 2 221 073 744 0.4090 I Bexar, Comal and Guadalupe County Appraisal Districts Property in the City of Schertz is reassessed every year at estimated actual value. For this reason, assessed value is equal to estimated actual value. Tax rates are per $100 of assessed value. Total taxable assessed value is before any applicable fi°eeze adjustments. 103 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATES LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UNAUDITED) 104 City Direct Rates Overlapping School Districts Schertz- Cibolo- Fiscal Basic Debt Universal Coma] Year Rate Service Total City ISD ISD 2017 0.3168 0.1743 0.4911 1.4700 1.3900 2016 0.3159 0.1752 0.4911 1.4900 1.3900 2015 0.3164 0.1810 0.4974 1.4900 1.3900 2014 0.3010 0.1964 0.4974 1.4900 1.4300 2013 0.2993 0.2006 0.4999 1.4600 1.4300 2012 0.2993 0.1850 0.4843 1.4350 1.4300 2011 0.2993 0.1500 0.4493 1.4350 1.3700 2010 0.2842 0.1500 0.4342 1.4200 1.3100 2009 0.2590 0.1500 0.4090 1.3850 1.3100 2008 0.2590 0.1500 0.4090 1.3150 1.3100 Overlapping Counties Bexar Comal Guadalupe Community Fiscal Hospital River College Year County District Authority District County County 2017 0.2933 0.2762 0.0173 0.1492 0.2928 0.3449 2016 0.2975 0.2762 0.0173 0.1492 0.3429 0.3311 2015 0.3269 0.2762 0.01.78 0.1492 0.3504 0.3999 2014 0.3269 0.2762 0.01.74 0.1492 0.3504 0.4036 2013 0.3269 0.2762 0.0174 0.1416 0.3504 0.4036 2012 0.3269 0.2762 0.0167 0.1416 0.3340 0.3999 2011 0.3269 0.2662 0.0160 0.1359 0.3130 0.3895 2010 0.3269 0.2610 0.0160 0.1359 0.3080 0.3895 2009 0.3269 0.2374 0.0160 0.1346 0.3180 0.3895 2008 0.3269 0.2439 0.01.60 0.1371 0.3152 0.4031. Source: Bexar, Comal and Guadalupe County Tax Offices NOTE: Overlapping rates are those of local and county governments that apply within the City of Schertz. Not all overlapping rates apply to all City of Schertz property owners. 104 Taxpayer Caterpillar Inc. SYSCO San Antonio, Inc. Amazon.com KYDC, LLC US Real Estate, LP Republic Beverage Co. Distribution Visionary Properties GE Oil & Gas Shell U San Ani SC Schi Sprint S Wal -M, H.E.B., EM Lin Eye Caj Lowe's Prologi; GD Bar Atlantic TOTAL TOTAL ASSE Source: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO 2017 Taxable Assessed Value Rank $ 141,584,070 1 105,604,943 3 80,897,236 2 57,155,244 4 49,373,850 6 40,740,300 7 31.044.393 5 Il.a Percentage 2 of 14,804,831 Total City 0.67% Taxable Taxable Assessed Assessed Value Value Rank 3.88% 5 2.90% 10,010,608 2.22% 0.45% 1.57% 8 1.35% 8,589,227 1!.12% 0.39% 0.85% 10 0.75% 0.67% 23,048,580 1 0.64% , Percentage of Total City Taxable Assessed Vnhia 1.04% 16,699,920 2 1.23% 14,804,831 3 0.67% 11 ,958,400 4 11,136,474 6 0.50% 11,298,734 5 0.51% 10,010,608 7 0.45% 9,104,240 8 0.41% 8,589,227 9 0.39% 8,566,675 10 0.39% .94% $ 125,217,689 5.58% $ 2,221,073,744 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UNAUDITED) Source: Guadalupe County Tax Office 106 Collected Within Total Collections Fiscal Year Taxes Levied Fiscal Year of Levy Collections In To Date Ended for the % of Subsequent % of September 30, Fiscal Year Amount Levy Years Amount Levy 2017 $ 17,356,822 $ 17,241,556 99.34% $ - $ 17,241,556 99.34% 2016 16,238,180 16,160,248 99.52% 43,500 16,203,748 99.79% 2015 14,793,867 14,738,760 99.63% 40,391 14,779,151 99.90% 2014 . 13,383,759 13,297,258 99.35% 64,948 13,362,206 99.84% 2013 . 12,536,540 12,455,336 99.35% 70,027 12,525,363 99.91% 2012 . 11,239,572 11,159,974 99.29% 70,626 11,230,600 99.92% 2011 9,978,430 9,895,240 99.17% 75,817 9,971,057 99.93% 2010 9,639,945 9,559,899 99.17% 73,205 9,633,104 99.93% 2009 8,800,927 8,703,978 98.90% 91,252 8,795,230 99.94% 2008 7,793,405 7,711,714 98.95% 77,047 7,788,761 99.94% Source: Guadalupe County Tax Office 106 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (UNAUDITED) Fiscal Year Taxable Total Taxable Total Ended Value Residential Commercial Tax - Exempt Other Assessed Direct September 30, January 1, Property Property Property Property Value* Tax Rate 2017 2016 $ 1,895,085,016 $ 2,269,590,522 $ (649,173,041) $ 132,002,406 $ 3,647,504,903 0.4911 2016 2015 1,702,601,947 2,087,223,204 (544,328,535) 130,353,5 15 3,375,850,131 0.4911 2015 2014 1,568,651,309 1,793,803,709 (460,271,461) 135,084,054 ' 3,037,267,611 0.4974 2014 2013 1,445,731,509 1,540,565,195 (340,747,650) 107,013,520 2,752,562,574 0.4974 2013 2012 1,383,423,359 1,396,349,905 (285,245,142) 105,837,429 2,600,365,551 0.4999 2012 2011 1,337,223,390 1,233,687,039 (262,591,896) 102,952,090 2,411,270,623 0.4843 2011 2010 1,272,970,256 1,253,600,729 (280,015,063) 117,337,786 2,363,893,708 0.4493 2010 2009 1,234,950,439 1,237,284,878 (251,217,268) 121337,441 2,342,355,490 0.4342 2009 2008 1,169,845,869 1,191,387,341 (248,544,582) 118,136,417 2,230,825,045 0.4090 2008 2007 1,096,587,777 1,276,925,393 (345,068,394) 192,628,968 2,221,073,744 0.4090 * Taxable Assessed Value is before any applicable freeze adjustments. Source: Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe County Appraisal Districts. 107 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Governmental Activities NOTES: a Details regarding the City's outstanding statements. b. See Table 18 for personal income and po personal income and population far the prit 108 in the notes to the basic financial rta for the City. These ratios are calculated using year. General Certificates Certificates Fiscal Obligation of Tax Capital Revenue of Year Bonds Obligation Notes Lease Bonds Obligation 2017 $ 56,613,614 $ 9,011,41.5 $ 1,230,000 $ 25,147 $ $ 2016 56,352,272 4,057,189 1,740,000 58,321 - 8,331,966 2015 53,410,128 277,801 1,210,000 91,495 - 8,946,153 2014 56,487,433 543,934 1,585,000 123,370 - 9,561,204 2013 58,693,750 801,767 2,155,000 22,398 2,215 „000 5,048,233 2012 60,878,759 1,581,300 190,000 60,190 2,342,656 5,383,700 2011 48,035,253 8,615,077 250,000 97,188 2,476,681 5,704,200 2010 37,804,450 12,404,034 310,000 133,408 5,436,773 6,149,350 2009 38,773,456 13,326,340 - - 5,779,949 6,571,150 2008 32,903,213 1.4,230,297 - 107,078 6,203,126 6,976,300 NOTES: a Details regarding the City's outstanding statements. b. See Table 18 for personal income and po personal income and population far the prit 108 in the notes to the basic financial rta for the City. These ratios are calculated using year. TABLE 13 Business -Type Activities Public General Total Percent Facility Obligation Capital Tax Primary of Gross Per Loan Bonds Lease Notes Government Income Capita $ - $ 2,533,626 $ 92,721 $ 1,065,000 $ 78,746,302 6.22% 1,996 - 3,014,595 162,262 1,360,000 75,076,605 6.39 %1,979 - 3,490,564 231,803 1,640,000 69,297,944 5.99% 1,830 - 3,966,533 347,705 65,000 72,680,179 6.35% 1,992 - 2,127,502 - 130,000 71,193,650 6.50% 1,982 - 2,413,471 - 190,000 73,040,076 8.15% 2,117 - 2,684,440 - 250,000 68,112,839 8.01°1 2,031 - - - 310,000 62,548,015 7.07% 1,923 7,000 - - - 64,457,895 7.05% 2,049 14,000 - - - 60,434,014 7.20% 1,885 1• General Fiscal Obligation Year Bonds CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS General Bonded Debt Outstanding Certificates Available in of Debt Service Obligation Funds 2017 $ 59,147,240 $ 9,011,415 2016 59,366,867 4,057,189 2015 56,900,692 277,801 2014 60,453,966 543,934 2013 60,821,252 801,767 2012 . 63,292,230 1,581,300 2011 . 50,719,693 8,615,077 2010 . 37,804,450 1.2,404,034 2009 38,773,456 1.3,326,340 2008 32,903,213 1.4,230,297 NOT] $ (1,087,260) (517,199) (227,674) (117,250) (286,215) (444,369) (429,289) (556,884) (347,739) Total $ 67,071,395 62,906,857 56,950,819 60,880,650 61,336,804 64,429,161 58,905,481 110 ,7 Percentage of Actual Taxable Value of Per Property Capita 1.84% 0 1,700 1.86 % 1,658 1.88 % 1,504 2.21% 1,669 2.36% 1,707 2.67% 1,868 2.49% 1,756 2.12% 1,527 2.32% 1,645 2.11% 1,462 notes to the basic financial statements. See can be found in Table 18. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT CURRENT YEAR Governmental Unit Debt repaid with property taxes: Alamo CCD Bexar County Bexar County Hospital District Coma] County Comal ISD Guadalupe County Schertz- Cibolo- Universal ISD Subtotal, Overlapping Debt City Governmental Activities Direct Debt TOTAL NET OVERLAPPING DEBT NOTES: The overlapping debt was received] outstanding debt can be found in the notes to Overlapping debt is the proportionate of the City of Schertz. This schedule is will be expected to repay. The amou portion of total assessed value of the percentage to the total governmental t TABLE 15 do financial statements the debts of local jurisdictions located wholly or in part within the limits i to demonstrate the total debt that the City of Schertz property taxpayers t applicable to the City of Schertz is computed by (a) determining what ping jurisdiction lies within the limits of the City and (b) applying this debt of the overlapping jurisdiction. 111 Estimated Estimated Share of Debt Percentage Overlapping Outstanding Applicable* Debt $ 394,680,000 0.19% $ 749,892 1,743,140,000 0.20% 3,486,280 643,960,000 0.19% 1,223,524 126,550,000 4.45% 5,631,475 568,250,107 2.60% ,. 1.4,774,503 7,095,000 18.91% 1,341,665 381,086,092 50.56% 1.92,677,128 219,884,466 66,855,029 $ 286,739,495 Municipal Advisory Council of Texas. Details regarding the City's do financial statements the debts of local jurisdictions located wholly or in part within the limits i to demonstrate the total debt that the City of Schertz property taxpayers t applicable to the City of Schertz is computed by (a) determining what ping jurisdiction lies within the limits of the City and (b) applying this debt of the overlapping jurisdiction. 111 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Assessed Value, 2016 Tax Roll $ 3,647,504,903 Debt Limit - Texas statues do not provide a legal debt limit for cities; however, through accepted practice a practical "economic" debt limit is considered to be 10% of the assessed value. $ 364,750,490 Amount of Applicable Debt: General Bonded Debt $ 66,,880,176 Less Debt Service Net Position (1,087,260) 65,792,916 DEBT MARGIN $ 298,957,574 Total Net Debt as a Percentage of Debt Margin 22.01% Fiscal Year 2014 .r 2015 2016 Assessed Value $ 2,752,562,574 $ 3,037,267,611 $ 3,375,850,131 Debt Limit $ ., 275,256,257 $ 303,726,761 $ 337,585,013 Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 56,803,499 53,424,303 61,181,169 Total Debt Margin $ 218,452,758 $ 250,302,458 $ 276,403,844 2010 2011 2013 Assessed Value $ 2,363,893,708 $ 2,411,270,623 $ 2,600,365,551 Debt Limit $ 236,389,371 $ 241,127,062 $ 260,036,555 Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 55,298,550 60,973,626 60,499,568 Total Debt Margin $ 181,090,821 $ 180,153,436 $ 199,536,987 Assessed Value Debt Limit. Total Net Debi Applicable to Limit Total Debt Margin 2007 2008 2009 $ 2,221,073,744 $ 2,230,825,045 $ 2,342,355,490 $ 222,107,374 $ 223,082,505 $ 234,235,549 45,466,903 50,41.4,481 48,81.9,435 $ 176,640,471 $ 172,668,024 $ 185,416,114 112 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS TABLE 17 Water Revenue Bonds NOTE: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt Operating expenses do not include depreciation, interest 113 i the notes to the basic financial statements. joint venture expenses. Utility Less: Net Debt Service Fiscal Service Operating Available Year Charges Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage 2017 $ 25,390,71.3 $ 18,697,1.62 $ 6,693,551 $ 1,554,541 $ 368,390 3.48 2016 22,003,794 17,603,487 4,400,307 1,441,741 417,346 .2.37 2015 20,700,369 15,916,597 4,783,772 1,448,407 428,912 2.55 2014 19,147,872 15,246,653 3,901,219 1,010,500 426,100 2.72 2013 17,696,327 14,553,274 3,143,053 728,800 359,680 2.89 2012 17,411,568 14,185,126 3,226,442 697,100 396,968 2.95 2011 16,843,780 13,229,037 3,614,743 577,824 409,801 3.66 2010 14,993,648 12,399,880 2,593,768 615,400 502,629 3.74 2009 14,533,390 9,973,940 4,559,450 .685,400 534,634 3.74 2008 13,620,440 9,040,264 4,580,176 665,400 558,569 4.86 NOTE: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt Operating expenses do not include depreciation, interest 113 i the notes to the basic financial statements. joint venture expenses. Fiscal Year 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS TABLE 18 Education Per Capita Level in Personal Personal Median Years of School Unemployment Income Income Age Schooling Enrollment Rate 39,453 $1,266,046,770 $ 32,090 37,938 1,175,319,240 30,980 37,865 1,157,835,970 30,578 36,477 1,144,465,875 31,375 35,929 1,095,331,494 30,486 34,499 895,739,206 25,964 33,544 850,069,800 25,342 32,523 885,015,876 27,212 31,465 913,919,790 27,923 32,057 839,701,058 26,194 Sources: Population, personal income, median age and education level Development Corporation. School enrollment provided by Sch School District. Unemployment data provided by Texas Workj 114 37.2 15.9 15,497 3.8% 36.9 15.8 15,460 3.4% 36.1 15.6 15,009 3.2% 36.9 15.4 14,515 5.1% 37.1 15.4 14,058 5.5% 36.8 15.4 13,016 5.6% 37.8 15,.4 12,533 5.7% 34.4 15.4 12,330 5.1% 36.5 13.9 11,700 5.0% 35.1 14.0 10,991 4.0% ?n provided by City Economic lo- Universal City Independent CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS TOP TEN PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO Source: City Economic Development Ci 115 2017 2008 Percentage Percentage of Total City of Total City Employer Employees Employment Employees Employment Schertz /Cibolo/UC ISD 1,837 12.92% 1,495 10.09% . Amazon.com 1,256 8.83% Sysco Central. Texas 815 5.73% Baker Hughes, a GE Company 600 4.22% The Brandt Companies, LLC 437 3.07% FedEx Ground 475 3.34% 165 1.11% Visionworks 400 2.81% Republic Beverage Company 382 2.69% 100 0.67% HEB Grocery CO 350 2.46% 300 2.02% City of Schertz 341 2.40% 303 2.04% Wal -Mart Stores 420 2.83% EyeCare Centers of America 320 2.16% Valero Diamond Distribution 160 1.08% Metro Ambulance LP 110 0.74% Manco 100 0.67% TOTAL 6,893 48.47% 3,473 23.41% Source: City Economic Development Ci 115 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS FULL -TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Note: Full -time equivalent is based on the schedule hours of positions to a 40 hour work week. 116 TABLE 20 Full -Time Equivalent Employees as of September 30, Function 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 General Government City Manager 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 5 5 Court Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Municipal Court 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Customer Relations 4 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Planning and Zoning 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 General Services 9 9.5 1.3.5 1.4.7 14.7 12.7 12.7 13 0 0 City Secretary 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Public Affairs 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Records Management 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Schertz Magazine 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Engineer 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 7 7 GIS 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Information Technology 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 6 6 7 Human Resources 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 Finance 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 Purchasing 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 Fleet Service 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 Facility Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 15.6 Public Safety Police 68.6 64.6 64.6 64.6 69.7 74.7 74.7 75.2 77.6 80.6 Fire 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 36 39 Inspections 8 7 6 7 7 7 8 9 8 8 Marshal Services 0 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 Health Animal Control 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 Environmental Health 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Parks and Culture Parks 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 Pools 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Event Facilities 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Library 10.5 11 13.5 13.5 14 14 14 14 14 14 Public Environment Streets 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Public Works Public Works 6 6 5 4 4 6 6 6 4 4 Business Office 10 10 10 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Water and Sewer 14 16 16 17 1.7 1.6 16 16 16 1.6 Drainage 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 6 6 EMS 30 34 34 34 35 35 36 37 39 41 Economic Development 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 272.1 285.1 289.6 299.3 310.9 317.9 319.9 327.4 338.7 345.7 Source: City Adopted Budgets Note: Full -time equivalent is based on the schedule hours of positions to a 40 hour work week. 116 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTIONTROGRAM LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Sewer Total Customers 9,974 9,499 10,907 10,988 11,456 Facilities Maintenance Number of Buildings Maintained 19 19 19 19 19 Square Footage 166,591 166,591 166,591 166,591 166,591 Source: Various City Departments. Prior year information for some functions is not available. 117 Fiscal Year Function 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 General Government Building Permits Issued 5,181 4,806 4,950 2,643 3,054 Schertz Tales Number of Magazines printed 120,000 144,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 Police CFS 36,319 37,269 26,205 19,434 19,894 Arrests 873 790 762 666 800 Traffic Violations 20,452 19,259 13,231 20,881 19,335 Accidents 1,491 1,606 1,575 1,665 1,960 Fire Number of Rescue /Other Responses 1,536 1,671 1,657 1,799 2,046 Number of Fire Responses 135 76 110 74 108 Number of Inspections 447 425 616 429 332 Number of Training Classes Conducted 264 107 142 168 132 Number of Pre -Plan Inspections 452 642 536 714 729 EMS Requests for Transport 7,061 7,281 7,443 7,545 8,391 Actual Transports 4,341 4,575 4,801 4,766 5,451 EMT Students 80 80 85 79 116 Marshal Service Warrants Issued 5,974 5,444 4,141 2,888 3,344 Warrants Cleared 3,836 4,023 3,985 4,118 4,687 Food Establishment Permits 134 129 118 123 127 Food Establishment Inspection 209 202° 244 180 281 Foster /Adoption Inspections 34 27 18 14 24 Parks Facility Reservations 671 719 237 234 258 Community and Civic Centers Civic Center 484 594 354 325 444 Community Center Rentals - 635 666 816 735 North Community Center Rentals - - 241 307 288 Animal Services Number of Animals Handled 1,804 2,021 1,802 1,463 1,326 Number of Adoptions 255 249 257 291 362 Number of Return to Owners 252 279 313 149 231 Number of Transfers 415 451 300 312 301 Library Annual Circulation 263,131 392,528 414,074 410,312 404,691 Library Visits 188,118 257,235 254,934 256,349 254,633 Library Program Attendance 10,499 10,610 13,767 16,035 12,581 Registered Users 20,360 24,628 28,589 30,475 31,658 Water New Connections 446 509 439 271 168 Water Main Breaks 72 25 76 52 38 Total Consumption (thousands of gallons) 15,115,679 12,313,766 16,763,239 16,131,415 15,500,413 Daily Average Consumption (thousands of gallons) 38,550 33,736 45,927 44,196 42,466 Peak Daily Consumption (thousands of gallons) 7,520 7,040 11,000 9,290 9,483 Total Customers 10,198 10,134 12,234 12,557 12,757 Average Use Per Connection 6,913 5,054 5,725 5,517 5,905 Sewer Total Customers 9,974 9,499 10,907 10,988 11,456 Facilities Maintenance Number of Buildings Maintained 19 19 19 19 19 Square Footage 166,591 166,591 166,591 166,591 166,591 Source: Various City Departments. Prior year information for some functions is not available. 117 Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2,869 3,087 5,919 5,919 4,800 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 19,067 36,138 39,064 39,064 34,428 776 595 603 603 423 15,077 12,306 8,960 8,960 8,001 1,823 2,040 2,119 2,119 2,057 1,759 2,167 2,327 2,327 2,758 110 99 67 67 86 252 698 440 440 519 125 150 460 460 340 735 980 867 867 922 8,840 9,286 9,723 9,723 9,956 5,713 6,118 6,123 6,123 6,201 87 84 89 89 90 2,354 3,798 2,587 2,587 2,816 3,781 3,691 3,492 3,492 2,822 82 135 145 145 201 218 136 153 153 .13 16 22 21 21 21 301 275 240 240 251 458 478 483 483 590 437 455 370 370 455 244 209 185 185 230 1,218 1,304 1,313 1,313 1,283 309 357 410 410 348 222 213 205 205 228 316 296 316 316 326 395,998 394,766 399,622 399,622 385,206 253,237 259,413 255,109 255,109 235,428 15,048 13,825 15,282 15,282 16,814 30,759 31,138 30,702 30,702 31,432 235 369 213 213 303 45 45 45 45 45 15,497,071 14,757,134 16,097,931 16,097,931 15,222,373 42,458 40,431 43,942 43,942 41,705 10,089 8,385 10,985 10,985 11,000 13,324 13,570 13,877 13,877 14,124 5,467 5,135 5,352 5,352 5,244 11,578 11,413 12,282 12,282 12,398 19 21 21 21 21 166,591 234,202 234,202 234,202 234,202 118 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTIONTROGRAM LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 119 Fiscal Year Function 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Police Stations 1 1 1 1 1 Patrol Units 33 38 40 42, 42 Fire Stations 2 2 2 2 2 Training Facility 1 - - - - Fire Vehicles 1.4 1.3 13 13 13 EMS Ambulances 6 6 6 6 6 Marshal Service Vehicles - 5 7 8 8 Streets Streets, paved (miles) 1.22 124 125 1.32 1.34 Streets, unpaved (miles) 7 7 7 5 5 Parks and Recreation Parks - Developed 7 11 12 17 17 Parks - Undeveloped 4 4 4 4 4 Playground "20 20 19 15 15 Swimming Pools 2 2 2 2 2 Baby Pools 2 2 2 2 2 Baseball /Softball Diamonds 12 12 12 9 9 Soccer Fields - 12 12 12 12 Community Centers 2 2 4 4 4 Animal Control Control Vehicle 3 3 3 3 3 Library Facility 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes in Collection 60,650 64,400 71,929 73,904 81,468 Water; Number of Reservoirs - - - - - Number of Pump Stations - 5 5 5 5 Water Mains (Miles) 1.82 188 190 1.92 1.92 Sewer Sanitary Sewers (Miles) 71 78 78 84 85 Storm Sewers (Miles) 8 9 9 10 10 Facilities Maintenance Vehicles 4 5 5 5 4 Generators 3 3 3 3 3 Source: Various City Departments 119 Fiscal Year TABLE 22 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 1 1 1 1 42 42 48 50 64 2 2 2 2 2 13 15 16 16 16 7 7 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 1.37 141 149 153 159 5 5 5 5 5 13 13 14 15 20 8 8 9 10 4 16 16 18 19 19 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 12 12 15 15 15 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 86,221 100,478 113,085 97,412 107,382 5 5 5 5 5 197 199 210 211 221 87 90 96 98 110 11 11 12 12 12 5 5 6 6 6 3 3 4 4 4 ®1 COMPLIANCE SECTION 121 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ' �l�l[ �7 �■ i��lll�li�% �r[ K�] �IIMZ�7��] �/ �1. ��1►/_\ � [� /_�A7�17�1.��1►[�'1_��I�Z��►� COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT A UDITING STANDARDS To the City Council and management City of Schertz We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Schertz as of and for the year ended September 30, 2017, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise City of Schertz's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated March 6, 2018. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the control over financial reporting (internal cont circumstances for the purpose of expressing of expressing an opinion on the effectivenes express an opinion on the effectiveness of Cit statements, we considered City of Schertz's internal ermine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the rns on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of Schertz's internal control. Accordingly, we do not rtz's internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a' reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. 941 West Byrd Blvd., Suite 101 - Universal City, Texas 78118 Phone: 210 -658 -6229 - Fax. 210-659-7611 - Email; it2$o@avacpa.com * www.avacpa.com 122 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether City of Schertz's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We noted certain matters that we have reported to management of City of Schertz in a separate letter dated March 6, 2018. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Armstrong, Vaughan & Associates, P.C. March 6, 2018 123 FROM: James Walters, Finance Director TO: Members of the Audit Committee SUBJECT: Question Regarding Parks & Recreation Foundation Account Balance During the Audit Committee Meeting, Councilmember Davis asked about balance of cash shown in the Parks & Recreation Foundation - mainly what it was and what it was for. Staff was under the impression that the Foundation did not have anything left in its bank account. The Parks & Recreation Foundation was founded in 2006 and was set up as an 501(c)(3) independent of the City of Schertz. Almost all the original board members were also City of Schertz employees and used City resources to support the Foundation such as of accounting services and software. For the time the Foundation was in existence the Schertz Finance Department managed their financial records. Legal counsel Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bernal, and Zech reviewed the relationship at the request of the City Manager's Office and the Schertz Finance Department in early 2016. They expressed concern that the relationship and exchange of services might potentially fall under a "gift of public funds" prohibition and would therefore be inappropriate. The recommendation was to have an official service agreement in place where the Foundation would compensate the City for use of the Finance Staff time and accounting software along with any other staff time used. The Parks & Recreation Foundation began its dissolution process in November 2016 and officially voted to dissolve on December 20, 2016. It made final donations in December 2016 to the YMCA for Aquatic Center Equipment for $10,000, to the YMCA for the mural at Pickrell Park Pool for $5,200, to BVYA for shade structures at the baseball fields for $45,900, and to the City of Schertz for the playscape restroom for $20,000. The Foundation kept enough funds to pay for their legal and accounting fees to officially disband and close. Anything left would also be donated to the City once the proper closing documents had been filed and accepted. By April 2017, the Foundation had made the final payments to the legal counsel and accounting firm assisting with its closing. On April 7, 2017 . the Foundation closed it bank account at Schertz Bank & Trust and signed over its remaining funds to the City in the amount of $13,716.15 and voided an outstanding check to the city of $50. These funds were recorded as a Parks Donation per the Foundation's request and have not been spent as of September 30, 2017. After the Audit Committee Meeting on March 6, 2018, . staff worked through these final transactions with the Auditor and corrected the amount shown in the draft Comprehensive Financial Report. For the final report, the Parks & Recreation Foundation will shows final 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.619.1 000 expenditures made during the 2016 -17 fiscal year and a zero bank balance. The amounts in the General Fund and the Parkland Dedication Fund where the City donations were received were already properly recorded and were not adjusted. Even though the foundation is a separate organization and is closed, it still needs to be included in the City's financial statement per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). GASB requires that any organization that receives significant funding from a governmental entity and whose sole purpose benefits that entity, should be included in the financial statement. The Parks and Recreation Foundation received a significant contribution from the City's Hotel Occupancy Tax Fund and their main operational goal was to improve parks in Schertz which qualified them to be included in the City's financial statements. Normally the City would request this information from the Foundation when preparing the financial statement but since Schertz already had their information it was not necessary. Once the Foundation had hired their own accountant and closed their bank account, keeping their records were no longer a focus for the Finance Department and as such staff did not look at it and update the records regularly, which led to the final entries not being completed in Incode in a timely manner. Now that the City is no longer keeping records for another entity this transposition of financial information should not happen again. 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.61191000 RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -26 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 -17, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016 -17 ; and WHEREAS, the Audit Committee has recommended that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016 -17; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to approve the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016 -17. THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016 -17. 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 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) 50506221.1 - 2 - Agenda No. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Subject: City Secretary Minutes The City Council held a Regular meeting on February 27, 2018. . HHZTG • ' • On RM Staff recommends Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 2018. Regular Meeting of February 27, 2018 minutes MINUTES REGULAR MEETING February 27, 2018 A Regular Meeting was held by the Schertz City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas, on February 27, 2018, 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 Mayor Pro -Tem David S Councilmember Mark Davis Councilmember Ralph Ca Councilmember Scott Larson Councilmember Cedric t Councilmember Angelina Kiser Councilmember Bert Crc, Staff Present: Acting City Manager Brian Ja Executive Director Dudley Wait Assistant to the City Manager City Attorney Dan Santee City Scary Brenda Dennis Deputy City Secretary Donna Schmoekel Mayor Carpenter called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m Texas. (Councilmember Guticrrez) Presentation • Presentation r garding the. Historical Preservation Committee Annual Report. Mayor Carpenter recognized 'Chair Dean Weirtz who presented his written and verbal . annual report on the, ctivities ,of the Schertz Historical Preservation Committee. He read from the statement of the executive summary. The committee's objectives this year were: 1) Historic Recognition 'Projects, 2) Advancing the Historic Narrative through publications and/or public appearances, and 3) joint organizational initiatives they might participate in. There were three applicants for designated landmark properties which were all presented to council; they wre 603 Main Street, 7720 Trainer Hale Road, and 207 First Street. Three Main Street matching grant proposals were sent to Council and were approved. Publication projects have included four quarterly newsletters, six remembrance special edition articles, a revised set of committee bylaws and a fourth book titled Schertz City Council, Half Century of Service. The Committee's 2017 `Looking Back' feature appeared in each monthly edition of the Schertz Magazine. Sales of their books have also continued though out the year. A joint initiative with the local school district includes the annual Student Art Essay Contest. Community outreach included participation in the community neighbors helping neighbors cleanup project. They also participated in the Samuel Clemens 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - i - High School Fiftieth Anniversary celebrations along with numerous other events. Additionally, they have maintained a French connection with the Riedisheim History Society through the years. They have met their objectives as set forth for 2017 and look forward to continuing that progress in 2018. None of this could have happened without the support from just about every city department; from the city manager office (particularly Mr. Brian James) and the City Secretary's office, Procurement, Finance, Parks and Recreation, Public Affairs, Planning, Library, GIS (mapping) and others. Most importantly, he thanked City Council, who continues to support and encourage their mission as well as their continued involvement in the Main Street revamp project: , They look forward to continuing their mission in 2018. Mayor Carpenter extended�his thanks to the committee for their continued efforts and hard work. • Presentation regarding the upcoming I Oth (S. Gonzalez /L. Klepper /M. Spence) Mayor Carpenter recognized Events Manage" Mary Spe the large events coming forth in the community this yea which raises funds for cancer research, will be this C everyone registering /starting at the Samuel. Clemens Higl `Movin on Main' which will feature outdoor fun with a Jubilee is a long -time favorite of the community with foo displays. They have now modified the ` formr Scherzf barbeque competitions. The last large event pf the yeas annual Tree Li2htin2 and Festival of Anels that kicks ofl alk for Life. ,e who provided a schedule for The Wilenchik Walk for Life, ming Saturday "March 3rd with School as usual. A new event is calth twist to it. The 4th of July activities, parades and firework t into the SchertzQ event with wrapping things up will be the he Christmas holiday season. Mayor Carpenter commented briefly on former city councilmember Tony Wilenchik who held Place 4,6n the Council.' He had a good grasp on the workings of municipal finances and a multitude of other great ideas /contributions. He was a lot of fun and a good man. He encouraged everyone to bme out'ih his,,, memory and raise funding for the cause. 2018 State of the City Address. (B. James /S. Gonzalez /L. Klepper) Mayor Carpenter recognized Public Affairs Director Linda Klepper who stated this video has been produced by the Public Affairs Department for the past 6 years. They change it a bit each year depending on what they are focusing on. This year they wanted to highlight on the result of the citizens satisfaction survey that was conducted in late 2016. . Some of the areas the citizens considered a high priority were maintenance of major city streets, parks and recreation programs, walking and biking trails, and code enforcement. This gave staff more insight on how to plan for future growth and develop and expand things the residents consider important to their quality of life. Mayor Carpenter thanked staff for another job well done. • Presentation of Employee Newsletter "Schertz Short". (L. Klepper /M. Geedman/D. Flores) 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 2 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Public Affairs Director Linda Klepper who introduced Communications Manager Melissa Geedman and Marketing and Communications Specialist Devan Flores to go over the newly created employee newsletter. They provided information on how it came about. An employee survey indicated staff felt this was an opportunity for more internal communication and employee engagement and saw a need for more timely information sharing. The Schertz Short is a bi- weekly employee newsletter designed to provide timely and informative news to all city employees regarding upcoming everts, employee recognitions, promotions, achievements, retirements, etc. It will also provide information on changes in procedures or policies, training opportunities, health and wellness tips, Schertz Magazine info, and news from other departments. The Schertz Short officially launched on Feb. 12. They have received good feedback so far and look forward to its cdntinued growth. City Events and Announcements • Announcements of upcoming City E Mayor Carpenter recognized Assistant to the City the following announcements: Bend No tration is Tuesday, March 6t' Gonzalez) Sarah Gonzalez who provided 11 1 Lot, 1.001 Elbel Road online at ACTIVE.COM Please call 210- 619 -1850 Friday, March 9t' Library Closed to Public Library closed for staff training and computer maintenance. Saturday, March 10th — Sunday, March 25th Spring Cleanup Drop -off location - 125 Pecan Drive 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page - 3 - Thursday, March 22 °a The 2018 Taste Retama Park 5:00 pm The Taste is an annual food sampling event held at Retama Park featuring 40+ food and beverage vendors from Schertz, Cibolo, and Selma areas. Due to the City being a CEO level member of the Chamber, the Chamber is offering 10 free- admission tickets to the Mayor and City Council. The tickets can be picked up at The Chamber office through Friday, March 16th. Any unused member" tickets will be donated to RAFB as one way of thanking our military for their service to ur community. • Announcements and recognitions by the Acting City Mayor Carpenter recognized Acting City Manager Brian James who sta point out that the written information staff provides council is not disus you don't miss them on the agenda he mentioned each topic; Band Council Compensation Adjustment, Traffic issues on Westchester at concerns /updates in northern Schertz and the revised;, City Master Calende • Announcements and recognitions b the Mayor (M. Mayor Carpenter stated he just wante community who go out and quietly d4 parkway, picking up trash in the parks, recognize and appreciate their efforts. Mayor :d he wished to �d but to ensure Signs Update, lbel, drainage update. there' always individuals in the ,r it is clearing some weeds on the d these individuals and said he does who spoke: • Mr. Scott Ristow,, 3505 Rokhill View, who spoke about `awareness' and maybe getting the Council involvedlin talking,, to the police officers and how they are being treated. He car tonight to be a dice for those who won't speak up for themselves. There are things going on: that nobodyl,is addressing. He lost his job (was forced to resign) and went to management with it but nothing was done. There are lawsuits going on and there will be more that he knows about. The citizens need to know how the police department is treated and how the police officers are being treated. • Ms. Michele Tereletsky, 705 Marilyn Drive, who spoke about the First Amendment. She is talking about personal social media, not the city's computers, not the government's computers; the personal social media accounts. She is requesting an example of how council thinks they are going to control and have consequences on citizens, commissioners, board members, councilmembers, and herself on social media. She would like this information from the dais so it is on record and in the minutes. • Ms. Maggie Titterington, President of The Chamber, who spoke on behalf of the businesses complimenting the Mayor on his presentation to introduce the 2018 State of the City video, stating that the things he said meant a lot to the business people present. The Chamber did 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 4 - their State of the Chamber video as well. She provided a brief powerpoint containing information regarding their current membership, use of local member services, marketing numbers and website views. Other statistical data shown was in regard to contributions to DECA, Project Graduation, etc., and membership attendance at monthly luncheons /mixers. They were again in the top 10 list of area chambers for the 4th year in a row. They also took first place in social media at the Texas Chamber of Commerce Executives Award at the June 2017 Conference. Their goal is to have a chamber location in all three - member cities. The Selma Branch just now opened up and the Cibolo branch is coming soon. They are also looking to do Facebook LIVE business ads. They are also seeking to get accreditation and only 205 chambers carry this distinction out of over 7,000" in the United States. The SA Hispanic is the only one in our area that currently has it. The Chamber's mission is `To Serve, Promote and Enhance Economic Success.' Their values are `Integrity, Stewardship, Excellence, Advocacy.' Their vision is `Continuing to empower businesses one relationship at a time.' She said she knows it was said they receive funding from the City of Schertzt They do not. They are a non -profit 501 C6 organization, funded; ley, their members and events. They currently have an agreement /contract with Schertz to " :r un their Visitors Center. They also have three contracts out with the cities of Cibolo, Selma, and Schertz to produce their pages of the Business Directory so they ,d6n't have to utilize their pity staff. They are very appreciative of the partnerships they have 'with the other"two� sister cities and want to continue promoting all three. • Mr. Brent Bolter, 2633, Clover Brook Lane, , vho stated. in regard to the firing of Mr. Kessel he brought up three ooncerus: 1) how it w s done, 2) lack of transparency in the aftermath, and 3) the new, city manager will have to -do a better job than Mr. Kessel, otherwise the firing will have been a failure. He did not criticize any prior city managers nor did he criticize any counciltnemb is by name. He states this for the record. He spoke about what had been addressed before �where,, ocal' business owners felt intimidated and feared retaliation if they came farward to speak. This is shocking and totally unacceptable. He also spoke about an individdl who had spoken at a previous Council meeting and said action should be taken by Council against The Chamber because of remarks made by The Cbaniber president. is "Ithis what we are about, intimidating people so they won't want to come up here and speak? He mentioned the First Amendment which guarantees we have the right 'lo free speech.: Citizens have this right to be heard regardless of whether Council agrees or not. Tie will continue to speak out. • Mr. Dana Eldridge, 2628 Gallant Fox Drive, who said he couldn't be here two weeks ago. He wanted to address something Councilmember Larson suggested in regard to having members of the community assist Council in the selection of a new city manager. There are a lot of qualified people in the community and could help Council. Lastly, he extended his compliments to The Chamber for being rated in the top ten ranking. • Mr. Robin Thompson, 967 Oak Ridge, who said it has been about a month since he has asked Council for financial accountability and transparency by the council regarding the expenses associated with the majority of council's decision to ask for the city managers resignation. They still have not heard anything on that request. He is asking when can they expect a decision from the city attorney regarding what degree of transparency can be 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 5 - shared. As citizens and taxpayers, when can they find out exactly how much the majority of council's decision is costing the taxpayers of Schertz. His second thing is that if there is an air of retribution or one that is discouraging feedback, he believes it is Council's duty to find out why. There are people coming out now and speaking openly about it. `Where there is smoke, there is usually fire'. These concerns are serious and he hopes council will take them seriously. • Mr. John Sullivan, 51.3 Triple Crown, who spoke about 0ld Wiederstein Road. We need a plan to address the road and the future of it. There are traffic back -up issues, pedestrian issues, and kids riding their bikes on it. In general, it needs a lot of improvement. He just wanted to bring this to Council's attention. Mayor Carpenter moved to Item 7 of'theAgenda. 7. Ordinance No. 18 -5 -10 — Conduct a public hearing 'and'consideratitin and /or action on a request to rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land from Single - Family ,.esidential District PH (R -1) to Office and Professional District (0) located approximately 220 et tutheast of the intersection of E. Live Oak Road and FM 30,09. First leading (B. James /L. Wood/E. Grobe) The following was read into ORDINANCE NO. 18 -5 -10 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ' THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AMENDING" THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES flF LAND FROM SINGLE - FAMILY D► RESIDENTIAL, (R -1) TO OFFICE ANPROFESSIONAL DISTRICT (OP). )r Carpenter recognized Planner l' 'Erily Grobe who stated this property is 1.5 acres s currently p�develipcl.. She provided a map of the area for council to view. After the shed notices they received three favorable responses and one unfavorable response. anuary 24th, P&Z had their, public meeting and on January 31" they published the hearing for tonight. Ms. Groe provided a definition regarding the Office and Professional District (OP) zoning use. Land Us $, permitted in Office and Profession Districts are limited (i.e. beauty salon, print shop, government facilities, medical or professional offices, etc.) Staff feels the request fits the city zoning requirements and should have a minimum impact on public services. The P&Z Commission approved the request unanimously and staff is also making a recommendation of approval to council. Mayor Carpenter opened the public hearing and the following individual spoke: • Ms. Karen Mitchell, President, Mitchell Planning Group, LLC, Ft. Worth, TX, who provided a powerpoint presentation regarding the development. They met with city staff prior to getting an application and sent letters to some of the surrounding 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page - 6 - property owners. At the public hearing that P &Z held a few people showed up and they were able to address their questions and concerns. The business that is proposed for this site is a dialysis facility, so it is a very low impact facility. This is a transitional zoning where you have residential properties and then a commercial facility is put on a primary arterial. Benefits are, it is the lowest intensity of non- residential uses. No retail is allowed. Typically, it is a Monday- Friday use and is closed in the evenings and on the weekends. It also doesn't generate much traffic. Mayor Carpenter closed the public hearing as no one else Ms. Grobe addressed questions and comments from Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Edwards who moved seconded by Councilmember Kiser to approve Ordinance No IS -5 -10 first reading. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford," voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Workshop • Update regarding the City of Mayor Carpenter recognized Finance Dire presentation for the fourth quarter of 2017' reflect expenditures arid, revenue at about 25 higher than 25% and that is primarily due were not due until Jdmiary 20184.' Mr. W fund, E arks Financial (B. James /J. Walters) [am, mes Walters who provided a powerpoint 1 -Dec. 1): At this point the budget should the new'fiscal year. Right now the revenue is ogle paying their property taxes early (they ral fund, special events fund, water and sewer the I &S fund. There were no questions from regarding Phase II Parks and Engineering fees. (B. James /L. Shrum /K. Woodlee) Mayor Carpenter recognised Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Lauren Shrum who spoke about the Parks and Recreation Fees including: BVYA ($60 -$125 depending on the sport -$10 more per non - resident registration) SYSA ($65 -$150 depending on the program -$10 more per non - resident) Senior Center Membership ($36 /yr. or $3.00 per mo.) – membership open to the community) Outdoor Pools Admission fees ($2 /day) Pool Parties (Residents $200- 285— Non - residents $240 -320) Depending on number of guests. Swim Lessons (Residents $85 per session /Non - residents $100 per session) Recreation & Aquatic Complex Membership Fees (License agreement initially defined rates and the YMCA sets the rates and reviews them each year. Resident rates shall not be increased by more than 2% annually throughout the term of the agreement). A chart was provided to 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 7 - a council reflecting the membership fees for the past several years. Day rates for the center are $6 for residents/$15 for family — Non-resident rates are $ 10 for residents/$20 for family. The value the city receives from the partnership with the YMCA is we get a high level of service, they partner with us on free community events such as Trunck or Treat, there is a high level of volunteerism in the community, we also partner with other community organizations such as the school district and lastly, the community will soon have access to facilities in both Schertz and the City of Cibolo. Ms. Shrum addressed questions/comments from Council. Mayor Carpenter recognized City Engineer Kathy Woodlee information on their department's fees. the following Grading and Clearing permits are required for any land disturbingac#vities greater than 0.1 acre (or any land disturbance within a floodplain). Cutrentfi6es are: 1) $JQ0, less than 5 acres, 2) $250, 5-20 acres, 3) $250 + $3/ac, over 20 ac, 4) 090, over 100 acres. ''The purpose of this permit is to ensure appropriate planning, design; ­,,and control of earth- disturbin g activities to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation that degrad.the environment and is generally related to a project for which another permit is requirq4:,, (building or development permit). Historically, revenue generated is as follows: 2013-14, $4,988.52, 2014-15, $5,024.80, 2015- 16 $7,887.03, 2016-17, $9,046.00, 2017-48 to present, $4,804,36. The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO. 18-R-19 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY USAGE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SCHERTZ AND THE CIBOLO CREEK MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY REGARDING TEMPORARY HOUSING OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ENGINE #3 AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 02-27-2018 Minutes Page - 8 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Fire Chief Kade Long who introduced Mr. Clint Ellis from CCMA whom they have been working with to acquire this location for temporary housing for Fire Station No. 3. An agreement has been worked out and they have updated the cost for that. It may cost up to $20,000 to get into this location. Mayor Carpenter stated he appreciates the work done on this and the partnership. This will give us a presence in southern Schertz and is much needed. Very well done. Councilmember Edwards also thanked Chief Long and his staff for doing this. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Edwards who moved seconded by Councilmember Crawford to approve Resolution No. 18- R - -19. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting nog MotionPsed. Mayor Carpenter moved back to the workshop portion of the agenda. • Roadway Impact Fee update. (B. James /K. Wooldlee) Mayor Carpenter recognized City Engineer Kathy Wdlee who provided a powerpoint presentation regarding this item whieb she said would afso be posted to the city website. She provided some background and purpose information. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for identified capital improvements necessary to accoImmodate new development over a 10 -year planning period. She provided map oboth the Master Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement. Plan. The total Value 'of the Capital Improvement Plan is $228,914,580. The total,co t attributable to new growth over a 10 -year period (after credit for ad valorem tax) it $56,888,912 Possible sources of funding for Capital Improvements are property tax revenue, bond revenue, grants, matching funds, state, federal, and roadway impact fees assessed new development. Same benefits of having a roadway impact fee program is it alleviates the burden of now facilities ou the:ex'isting tax base and it facilitates `growth paying for growth.' It provides a SYS tematic, structured approach to the assessment of fees and enables upfront knowledge of fees to be imposed to new development. It also fairly distributes thoroughfare infrastructure costs 'to deevelopment based on service units developed rather than location of development:, The maximum allowable cost per service unit for the four service areas range from $1,647.53 to $2,392.72. Some policy considerations and recommendations are as follows: • Same rate City�Wide vs. Different Fee in Different Service areas (same rate recommended) • Different Fee Rate(s) for Residential vs. Non - residential (different rates recommended) • Establish a cap for Maximum Fee (cap not recommended) • Incremental Increases (incremental increases recommended) • Phase -in of fee imposition (phase -in (grace periods) recommended) Recommended Base Rates: • Residential Base Rate of $600 per service unit (about $2,022 per single family house) • Non- residential. Base Rate of $100 per service unit (about $5,690 for 10,000 sq. ft. office or $2,440 for 20,000 sq. ft. warehouse 02 -27 -2018 Minutes page - 9 - Recommended incremental increases in base rates: Residential - Years I and 2 - $600 per service unit ($2,022 per house) Residential - Year 3 - $800 per service unit ($2,696 per house) Residential — Year 4 - $900 per service unit ($3,033 per house) Residential — Year 5 - $ 1,000 per service unit ($3,370 per house) Non-residential — Years 1-3 - $100 per service unit Non-residential — Years 4 and 5 - $175 per service unit The local development code allows for a one-year delay of assessing fees for a lot which has already been platted; staff recommends this be extended to 18 months. For development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to adoption of the, "ordinance won't be charged an impact fee for any complete building permit application submitted"within one year after the adoption of the impact fee. Any other development will be charged an impact fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance. Several charts were provided reflecting maximum allowable and proposed rates on a Variety ' of buildings (commercial and residential) for Schertz and a number of other Texas cities that imp p se a roadway impact fee. Most of the cities studied are chbosing,"lless than the maximum,, allowed. It is recommended we do the same. Staff also did a comparison of all development fees (water, wastewater, proposed roadway, etc.) Several examples were provided. Staff recommends charging lower fees than the maximum allowed.; s. Woodlee, W.-Jarnes and other staff addressed comments/questions from Council. Consent Agenda Items ORDINANCE NO. 18-5 -07 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY ZONING 02-27-2018 Minutes Page - 10- APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES OF LAND TO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT -I (R -1). 4. Ordinance No. 18-S-08 - Consideration and/or action on an amendment of Part III, Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), Article 9 Section 21.9.9 Tree Preservation and Mitigation. Final Reading (B. James /L. Wood/B. Cox) The following was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18 -S -08 5. Resolution No. 18 -R -23 — Consideration and /or acti expenditures not to exceed $131;500" Per fiscal cumulatively over the two year contract term,, for parkways, and public grounds. (B. James /L. Shrum) ',, The following LUTION NO.; 18 -R -23 a Resolution authorizing not to exceed $263,000 maintenance of medians, A RESOLUTION BY'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING NO MORE THAN $131,500 FOR ONE FISCAL YEAR, AND $263,000 CUMULATIVELY OVER THE TWO YEAR CONTRACT TERM, FOR. :LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF MEDIANS, PARKWAYS, AND'PUBLIC GROUNDS. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Crawford who moved seconded by Councilmembe Edwards to approve consent agenda items 1, 3, 4 and 5. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Discussion and Action Items 2. Ordinance No. 18 -M -09 — Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending and updating the City Council Rules of Conduct and Procedure. Final Reading (M. Carpenter /Council) 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 11 - The following was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18 -M -09 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SCHERTZ AUTHORIZING AMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF CONDUCT AND PROCEDURE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Edwards who wanted to state for the record, the closed session versus the executive session, the should,, versus shall; he doesn't want to see us getting in any trouble, so he will be objecting,fo" that particular item inside this particular ordinance. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember ,Larson who made a Motion seconded by Councilmember Gutierrez to approve Ordinance 18 -M -09 final reading. Mayor Carpenter,, called for the vote. la,, who asked Councilmember s objecting to? Councilmember is hearing from our sister city. Vo different things being said; he )jecting to the verbiage. He said nds that change comes about. He out and sharing information was s is just his opinion. The vote was 2 -5 -0 with Col unilmembers Larson and Gutierrez voting for and Mayor Pro -Te cagliola, Councilmerrnbers Pa►vis, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting no. Mayor Carpenter stated since the motion failed the original language will stand. He understands the sentiment of the council. He also stated if he decides he wants to talk about ,what went on in closed session, he will do so and if this council wants to censure him, feel, free to do so it can only help his re- election efforts. 6. Boards /Comrnissians /Committee Member Appointments - Consideration and/or action . ratifying the appointments of Councilmember David Seagliola, Ms. Susan Beck, Mr. Bill Baldwin, Mr. Johnny Bierschwale and Mr. Don Taylor to the 2018 Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee. (B. Dennis /Mayor /Council) Mayor Carpenter stated on this one he thinks he has a solution to what he thinks might have been a challenge. 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page -12 - Mayor Carpenter moved seconded by Councilmember Larson to appoint Mayor Pro -Tem David Scagliola, Ms. Susan Beck, Mr. Bill Baldwin, Mr. Johnny Bierschwale and Mr. Don Taylor and to provisionally appoint Councilmember Crawford to the 2018 Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee provided there are no objections within the by -laws nor objection from the committee being appointed that the provisional appointment be a standard and regular appointment. The vote was 6 -0 -1 with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards and Kiser voting for and Councilmember Crawford abstaining. Motion passed. 8. Resolution No. 18 -R -22 — Consideration and/or action appraving a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a consent, joinder, and subordination agreement with regard to a waterline easement with Cariari Holdings, Inc. and Central. Texas Regional Water Supply Corporation (CTRWSC). (B. James) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION NO.', _ 18 -R -2 Mayor Carpenterxecognizo& Acting City Manager Brian James who stated the entity just named is trying to ,acquire a water easement. The landowner has indicated a willingness to turn over dedication, locumeents. Their concern is that if there is an issue or conflict, then it puts them.. back at squ T are, he'. refore, tho point of this is to get on the same page to work out how we'll work with them. 1.0. Resolution No 18 -R 21 — Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the acceptance ofthe 2017 Annual Racial Profile Report (D. Wait /M. Hansen /M. Bane) The following was read into record: RESOLUTION 18 -R -21 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2017 RACIAL PROFILING REPORT, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page -13 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Police Chief Michael Hansen who provided a powerpoint presentation regarding the racial profile report. He explained the legal requirement of the report, the data of the report, and also provided some trends /comparisons. Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.1.32 requires documentation of the race /ethnicity of anyone detained, issued a citation and arrested. They are required to document if the race was known prior to the stop, if a search was conducted, if the search was consensual and if there were any complaints or allegations of violation of the law:: This information must be presented to city council and the state regulatory agency by the�end of February each year. Chief Hansen provided the report that was actually submitted to the state. It contained information on the total number of individuals detained and their,race /ethnicity. The most often comparison made is with the census demographics of the jurisdiction. The data here is compared to the 2012 census estimate, which is the most current information they have. They also compare to previous years. From X014 to 2017, the numbers a p' car °consistent across the board. The remainder of the report 'answers the questions of. 1) ?,ace /Ethnicity known (3 %), 2) Search conducted (6 %), 3) Search consented (7 %), 4) Complaints (0). Using the data from this report supports the recognition that the Schertz Police Department continues to ethically and impartially, enforce the laws and- ordinances. Mayor Carpenter recognized Cnuncilcmber Davis ' who moved seconded by Councilmember Gutierrez to approve Resoluticon Flo: 18 -R -21. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers I1a is, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. 11. Ordinance No. 18-T-1 I, Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance authorizing an adjustment ti, transfer funds for the Operations Grant in connection with the Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company Performance Agreement, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; and providing an effective date. First Reading (B. James /J. Walters/K. Kinateder) The following was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18 -T -11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN ADJUSTMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page -14 - OPERATIONS GRANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACE MART RESTAURANT SUPPLY COMPANY PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Mayor Carpenter recognized Finance Director James Walters (stepping in for EDC Executive Director Kyle Kinateder) who stated this is a previously approved performance agreement with Ace Mart. This was brought before Council in August 2017 and was approved via Resolution No. 1.7 -R -74. Due to timing it was not included in the 201.7 -18 budget as we were not sure when the company would be ready, to comply, so staff decided to withhold allocating funds. Now it looks like they are going to meet those requirements quickly, so this is a budget adjustment to allocate those funds a agreed upon. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember rav Councilmember Gutierrez to approve Ordinance No. 1' with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmmbers Da Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Mayor Carpenter stated as a matter of procedure, if would like to go back (make a motion to reconsider ate, that before the close of the meeting. 12. Resolution No. 18 -R -25 - City Policie approving Employee Policies related to (D. Wait) - Prohibition The following was LUTION NO. 18 -R -25 )rd who moved seconded by T -11. The vote was unanimous Is, Gutierrez, Larson, .Edwards, lotion Passed. one of council in the majority o. 2) he will certainly consider action approving a Resolution Discipline in the Workplace. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING AN EMPLOYEE POLICY RELATED TO EMPLOYEE CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE IN THE WORKPLACE AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Mayor Carpenter ,recognized Executive Director Dudley Wait who stated HR Director Jessica Kurz would be presenting some information on this item. Ms. Kurz stated the policy that came before council at an earlier meeting was designed to mirror the city's existing policy which is limited in scope to only those classes that are currently protected by federal or state law. Based on some of the comments made, staff went back and made some revisions. The revised version before you this evening includes sexual . orientation and gender identity as part of the harassment policy. They wanted to present this to Council for consideration before rolling it out to staff for training. 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page -15 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Kiser who thanked Ms. Kurz for adding that into the policy. She recognizes that it goes above the minimum, but she thinks it is important. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Edwards who moved seconded by Councilmember Kiser to approve Resolution No. 18 -R -25. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Rall Call VatP f nnfirmntian City Secretary Brenda Dennis provided the roll call votes for Mayor Carpenter stated the next item on postponing that until the next council meeting. Closed Session City Council will meet in closed session under Consultation with the City Attorney regarding p GVSUD vs. City of Schertz TCEQ Formal Protest GVSUD Wa: Public Utility Commission - Request City of Schertz city limits EEOC Claim Fortner Employee 1\ SSLGC vs. Clcan'Green Inc, (Post i Former Emnlovee Scott Ristiw vs. they will be 51.071 of the Texas Government contemplated litigation. held in closed session under Agenda Item 13. to the next council meeting. • Discussion regarding a request from the City of Seguin to resell water to third party wholesalers. (D. Wait) Mayor Carpenter recognized Executive Director Dudley Wait who stated in late January Mayor Carpenter received a letter from Mayor Keil in Seguin requesting permission to directly sell SSLGC water to New Braunfels Utilities from the City of Seguin. The founding documents of SSLGC only allows partners to sell water wholesale if all three parties agree to allow it. Therefore, the funding model from the founding documents drive this. 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page -16 - Mr. Wait said he doesn't have all the pieces of information yet for Council to make a decision tonight. They are still waiting on rate modeling if Seguin were to do it versus SSLGC. Staff is slated to review this information this Friday. Therefore, he will probably be back with this item /information at the March 13th meeting for council to either approve or not approve Seguin's request. Mr. Wait explained the pricing model which included the following: • O &M Costs – All SSLGC water customers pay the same O &M rate. • Debt Payments – Everyone who contributes to SSLGC debt payments are subtracted from the total. The remaining amount is split 50150 between the two partners. • Effective rates – Effective rates for Schertz and Seguin differ greatly due to water consumption driven by population and industry., A chart was provided showing the different amounts of water consumption by the two cities. Up until recently, the partnership has been view+ benefit all buyers through a lower O &M o-,691. benefit exists due to sharing their 50% portion partner wholesale arrangement harm the other place to insure neither partner is harmed? 3) If t to insure the option is available to'both partners? Mr. Wait addressed questions and corrur forward to speak. He was an original me he has been involved in it for over 15 yea we going to be completely out of water?,] are too many 'ifs" in it —this is what the information back to clouncil,as they get it. as 50150 only. And additional water sales If a partner sells the water, an additional . debt payment. Questions are: 1) Does this t�rtner in any way? 2) Are mechanisms in s dour is opened, are mechanisms in place from Council: Mt. Ken Greenwald also came r of the crew who started this organization and e said the main concern is by 2023 or 2024 are )they city going to be able to support us? There •d sees right now. They will be bringing more Mayor Carpenter reeii nixed Cdhncilmehiber Davis who made a motion to reconsider Ordinance o.,I8 -M -09 (Item 2). The inotion was seconded by Councilmember Larson. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembers Davis, Gutierrez, Larson,,Edwards, 40ser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. 3. Ordinance No. 18 -M -49 – Consideration and /or action approving an Ordinance amending and updating the City Council. Rules of Conduct and Procedure. Final Reading (M. Carpenter /Council) The following 'was read into record: ORDINANCE NO. 18 -M -09 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SCHERTZ AUTHORIZING AMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF CONDUCT AND PROCEDURE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page -17 - 1.4. 15 Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Davis who asked if they got confused on this item earlier? He remembers three items proposed by the mayor and council recommended two of those and those are the two that are reflected in this item tonight — correct? Mayor Carpenter concurred. He stated they were not taking up the Ethics Code. Councilmember Edwards stated the only concern he had was the 3.5 (changing Executive to Closed). Mayor Carpenter explained his reason for requesting that change is that in the Texas Open Meetings Act there is no reference made to Executive Sessions in the law; only Closed Sessions. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Davis who moved seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Scagliola to approve Ordinance No. 18 -M -09 final reading. The vote was unanimous with Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola, Councilmembelrs lCl�avis, Gutierrez, Larson, Edwards, Kiser and Crawford voting for and no one voting no. Motion Passed. Roll Call Confirmation City Secretary Brenda Dennis provided the roll Mayor Carpenter stated, for cla'rr�fi reconsider (to make a motion to ree� meeting has been adjourned and c, reading), then Bullet #8 of the Rules o once a vote is taken.' Wherefore, it is v of that same meeting. Mayor Carpenter als, kstat item will be rescheduled' z. by for Item 2. it is definitely correct for us if we wish to v an item within the same meeting. Once the �ringring it back afterward, (it being a final ct would apply, which reads that majority rules )rtant to reconsider an item within the confines {or the closed session listed on the agenda; that ,cil meeting. His understanding is that they had Mayor Carpenter recognized Acting City Manager Brian James who stated staff attempted to adjust the agenda order this time, as normally they do not split work sessions. This was done to try and' accommodate certain individuals so they wouldn't have to sit through the whole meeting, for just their one item. Staff will continue to work with this concept, see how it turns out and would appreciate any feedback from Council as to the results. Requests by Mayor and Couneilmembers that items be placed on a future City Council agenda. 02 -27 -2018 Minutes Page -18 - Mayor Carpenter recognized Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola who stated he thinks they need to have an agenda item to discuss hiring a new city manager. Specifically, staff needs guidance on what Council is looking for and how to go about getting it. Mayor Carpenter stated that on our next agenda we need to have a closed session to discuss the appointment of a new city manager. This council needs to come together on what we are looking for so we can all get on the same page. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Crawford who requested an item on the agenda where council can discuss how to be more transparent and pass on information more clearly. Mayor Carpenter suggested having a worlhop where council discusses transparency in a general manner. This will be put on the next meeting as well; a general conversation with regard to governmental transparency. Mayor Carpenter recognized Councilmember Larson who asked why the discussion of what they are looking for in the selection of a new city manager would take dace in closed session. Mayor Carpenter stated they would` be, discussing the appointment /assignment, etc. —it is what we have done in the past. However; t,doesn't have to be in closed session. Council would be discussing, in general, what are w& looking for? What do we want to advertise for? It is a first step. He recommends closed session. 16. Announcements by Mayor and C • City and community events atterided`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 bv community volunteers Carpenter recognized, Councilmember Gutierrez who said this past weekend he ran Project Warrior 5K run: Looking at these veterans, they are injured /wounded, but >irt is still intac(:and God'lbss the people who put this event together. Mayon Carpenter stated,he was also at that event which is a partnership between the City of Schertz, Selma, and Operation Comfort –the 8th year. It is a great event. 1.7. Information available in City Council Packets - NO DISCUSSION TO OCCUR • Update regarding weekend bandit sign pick up. (D. Wait /E. Spradling /T. Brooks) • Mayor and Council compensation adjustments. (B. James /J. Walters) • Traffic update regarding intersection at Elbel Road and Westchester. (D. Wait /M. Hansen) (Information requested by Mayor Pro -Tem Scagliola) • Update regarding the drainage /flooding issues in Northern Schertz (break way gate at Scenic Hills Subdivision. (D. Wait /J. Hooks /D. Letbetter) (Information requested by Councilmember Larson) • Schertz Master Calendar update. (S. Gonzalez) 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page -19 - Adjournment As there was no further business, Mayor Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: Brer Carpenter, Mayor 02 -27 -201.8 Minutes Page - 20 - Agenda No. 2 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Planning & Community Development Subject: Ordinance No. 18 -S -10 — Consideration and/or action on a request to rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land from Single - Family Residential District (R -1) to Office and Professional District (OP) located approximately 220 feet southeast of the intersection of E. Live Oak Road and FM 3009. (Final Reading) The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land, from Single - Family Residential District (R -1) to Office and Professional District (OP). The subject area is generally located 220 feet southeast of the intersection of FM 3009 and E. Live Oak Road. The subject property consists of undeveloped land. The public hearing notice was published in the San Antonio Express News on January 31, 2018. Twenty Six (26) public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property on January 12, 2018, prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting that took place on January 24, 2018. At the time of this report, Staff has received three (3) responses in favor, one (1) response opposed, and zero (0) responses neutral to the request. The following residents / representatives spoke at the January 24, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing: • Karen Mitchell- Mitchell Planning Group, LLC- Representative of the Applicant o Explained the challenges with developing the property under the current Single Family Residential zoning and indicated that the proposed use of the property would be as a medical facility, specifically a dialysis facility, if the proposed rezone to Office and Professional District is approved. • Jimmy Van Slyke- 124 Patrick Henry o Expressed concern with traffic flow associated with a commercial building. City Council Memorandum Page 2 City Council approved this on first reading at their meeting of February 27, 2018. Goal The proposed rezone is for approximately 1.5 acres of land from Single - Family Residential District (R -1) to Office and Professional District (OP) located approximately 220 feet southeast of the intersection of FM 3009 and E. Live Oak Road. Community Benefit It is the City's desire to promote safe, orderly, efficient development and ensure compliance with the City's vision of future growth. Summary of Recommended Action The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) through the Future Land Use Plan designates the subject property as Single - Family Residential. The objectives for Single - Family Residential encourage a mix of residential uses as well as limited commercial development to support the daily activities of the development. • Comprehensive Land Plan Goals and Objectives: The proposed rezoning is generally in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Specifically, the Single- Family Residential designation on the Future Land Use Plan allows for limited commercial development. The Office and Professional zoning district would allow for the limited commercial uses desired by the Future Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Land Plan. • Impact on Infrastructure: The proposed zoning request should have a minimal impact on the existing and planned water and wastewater systems. • Impact on Public Facilities /Services: The proposed rezoning should have a minimal impact on public services, such as schools, fire, police, parks and sanitation services. • Compatibility with Existing and Potential Adjacent Land Uses: The subject property is generally surrounded by single family land uses. It is staff's opinion the requested rezone is compatible with surrounding properties. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Single - Family Residential District (R -1) to Office and Professional District (OP). The Comprehensive Land Use Plan section which reviews this portion of central Schertz was adopted in 2002, at that time the subject property was zoned for single- family residential uses. The 2013 Schertz Sector Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan focused on the northern and southern areas of Schertz and did not examine central, where the subject property is located. Since the Schertz Sector Plan amendment did not review this area, the subject property is still identified as Single- Family Residential desired property although located directly adjacent to FM 3009. City Council Memorandum Page 3 The Comprehensive Land Use Plan describes Single- Family Residential as a mix of residential uses as well as limited commercial development to support the daily activities of development. Office and Professional District would be considered a commercial classification that would allow for very limited office and commercial development. Per the Permitted Use Table within the Unified Development Code only 18 land uses are allowed by right in the Office and Professional District. This is compared to the next lowest intensity commercial, Neighborhood Services District, which allows 34 land uses by right. Office and Professional District is the most limited, in terms of permitted land uses, nonresidential zoning district that is currently listed within the Unified Development Code. Based on land use compatibility with the surrounding single - family residential, and apartment / multifamily residential zoned property and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan stating that the Single- Family Residential classification allows for limited commercial development, the request to rezone to Office and Professional. District (OP) is an appropriate zoning district supported by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and its goals and objectives. In keeping with the commercially desired land use described in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Office and Professional. District would allow for the most limited office and commercial developments that would be more appropriate and compatible with the single- family residential used and zoned property in the proximity than a more intensive commercial zoning district such as General Business. The proposed zoning of Office and Professional District would provide for commercial uses that are appropriate and compatible with the adjacent residential properties. Additionally, Office and Professional District provides the opportunity for limited commercial and office uses to more conveniently accommodate the needs of the nearby residential uses. FISCAL IMPACT I�►�Cii T-a 1• The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted the public hearing on January 24, 2018 . and offered a recommendation of approval by a unanimous vote. City Council conducted a public hearing on February 27, 2018 . and also offered a recommendation of approval. Based on the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the existing land use conditions, Office and Professional is the most appropriate zoning district for this property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning as submitted. ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 18 -5 -10 200' Notification Map Aerial. Map Exhibit Citizen Responses ORDINANCE NO. 18 -S -10 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES OF LAND FROM SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, (R -1) TO OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT (OP). WHEREAS, an application to rezone approximately 1.5 acres of land generally 220 feet southeast of the intersection of E. Live Oak Road and FM 3009, and more specifically described in the Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached herein (herein, the "Property ") has been filed with the City; and WHEREAS, the City's Unified Development Code Section 21.5.4.D. provides for certain criteria to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in making recommendations to City Council and by City Council in considering final action on a requested zone change (the "Criteria "); and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and, after considering the Criteria, made a recommendation to City Council to approve the requested rezoning; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018 . the City Council conducted a public hearing and after considering the Criteria and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, determined that the requested zoning be approved as provided for herein. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: THAT: Section 1. The Property as shown and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B, is hereby zoned Office and Professional District (OP). Section 2. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Schertz, described and referred to in Article 2 of the Unified Development Code, shall be revised to reflect the above amendment. Section 3. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the Council. Section 4. 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 5. This Ordinance shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 6. If any provision of this 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 7. 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 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the date of final adoption hereof and any publication required by law. Section 9. 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 27th day of February, 2018. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on final reading the 13th day of March, 2018. ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (SEAL OF THE CITY) Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor Exhibit A "The Property" -4-A,W I-rn-WM 'Imll-M Rmd, -suite 100 Sari Antonk% Temas 75249 J ON E S 1r-AR-rE: R 2l,04145511 210.494.5519 M CTVS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION Or A 1,4," ACRE TRACT Of LAND A Mete,% and Souvoll deW.ription of a 1.496 acre 165,258.square feeti tract of fond situated ir, throe ijvnoklera listalp-az Survey Mo. fi? Abstrart No. 221, Clity of5chertz, (3cia Mange Count y, Tnpxas; being all ofthat c called 1.500 acFe tract imibed r Instrument to William M- Dietz rpcarded In Volume 5.27, Page 528 of the Gua&tlupe ComewtV De d Records; and heing more parrucularly described as IfellcAvs: BEGINNING at a 112-Inch iron Fud fuund in ti-ir westerly fight -af-way kne of FM 3003— Ruy Richard W-ve 112(ttectwidet maiking the nartheast career of that terlain (1917 acre Tract dpwiWAI In instrument to Robert D. Dietz remmito in Volume 527, Rare SM of the Gkordalufre Counti Deed Records, and the southeast comet or the hetehi described tract, (State Plane Coorskinates, NoTth; 13, 756"69157 feet, Uas't; 2,203,8291,6$ feet)l THENCE, South 63'59",G' West., 232.8,7 Peet alongthe northerly boundary of said 41.917 acre tract to a 1/21r.Eh iron road found I .0tuated in the norfficasterly boundaryof Block 1, Greenfield Virlatile Subdivision Urea 1, plat sT vahich is recorded in, VoAurn e 3, Page 40 of the titiadalutie Count,( Plat ftecoffds; TMENCE, North 7 a40`54' West„ 2S7-35 feet along tire northeasterty boundaty Of said M0 1, to P,112-inch Iron rod found marking the e"term-must rarner of that certarin 091M4 acre tract described in instrument to P.H-A, Enterreise% Ltd. %ecarded in Veourne ir)-,14, Page 2142 of the Guadalupe County Deed Records, and the c�agrier of that certain 1.693 acre tract described in imtrumenk to Judh-b N!, Dietz rmarded i n Volume 931, Page 251 of the Guadidupe Comity Deed Re,�cCOd$;; THENCE, North 64"17'42" East, 221.54 feet along the southealtertf b000dary of sobd 1,683 acre tract to as 1f2-4nch Iron rod found situated in trhe westerly righl,of-wav Itnp of allora,5ald F. M. 300% THENCE, with said westetterltlhtmrif-wwg sine, in a mutheastally direction, aping the Arc of a curve, to Lhernfhl having iladrus of 2804,79 fern:, a mistral angle of OS'ITWI, a lung chord b"Ong of South 17,015'0" Eest. 2WO15 feel. a total arc length of ,25915 feet to the P0FNTQ1 ",GENNIM10, conwasing 1.498 acres of land in Guadalupe Countly, Temm, 85 5how" on Etramang No- 115,63 Filed under Job No. 12959,0004-013 In the office of JONES] CARTER. San Antonio. Texas. Note: Tire bearints,4131fames,;treed and onarrilknates, shown hereon are Texas State Coordinate SyStwo grid, soutti C lmtral XrorL (NAW33), asidet-el-mined bv Gidbal Positioning Wstern (r5 w]: wlthNCS OPISS post to0cessing. The unit Oflinealr measurem,%nt is U.& Surve Feet.'fo convert grid distances to surfirre, applythe combime-d grill to surface, saake, fa(;IQT Qf J-DUCOSES4. Please revrms, the reccod instruments cited Norton to coatpare the survey bamingsand dislancesivith the record C's Its, JONESICARTER, INC. Tavqij 00ard afProfescianal Land Survey Registration NbAW461-05 TTu,y A, Troba uRh Registened Professional, Land Sumter 1115241 Signature Date:_tjgyqMk ,Job No, N. mbvr22,2017 - Pap lad 1. im. lit "The VM � a cc WE N" is s m " M S � 1,. p u c? �- Diu rU D m 5 f f yi. A i p A 4 r � a ! � G tr tai. w 1^ � � a;, «t � � �' � � w a v L � �mMW a ak w y �. Run list Mg g win, D qi pp 6f i w f a. C °2 y V U: 0111 u lit A -_T_ M ri p S 1 Ai i, y x a" ,,{ ity. W W Ail z III i �� ovz 1236 ��Q pFt LIVE OAK RD \�clo � \ �2� (67534) V \ �y�a �6eev,\y 09\ �a0 0L \Zy�1�1 .ryQv ^� (s7940s) i 1 $�17y:No1G.(. ZV ryh��O a� NIP-G�(�� JS�y3�2\ Zy�'�21 �p,�0 F 6�ypd\ ,11,, z Off' • JSCAy3��\ �p m Gym \2 FM 3009 00 by p (67539) 112 CM5.. R Y W i0D 1 G�1-6 �IN2O�7DR ( ) RY t F,. „ January 12, 2018 Dear Property Owner, DE 'ID LOPUFAWT The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 6:00 p.m, located at the Municipal Complex Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Building #4, Schertz, Texas to consider and make recommendation on the following item: ZC2017-019 — A request to rezone approximately '1.5 acres of land from Singie-Family Residential District (R-1) to Office and Professional District (OP) located approximately 220 feet southeast of the intersection of E, Live Oak Road and FM 3009, The Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this request and invites you to attend the public hearing. This form is used to calculate the percentage of landowners that support and oppose the request, You may return the reply form below prior to the first public hearing date by mail or personal delivery to Emily Grobe, Planner, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154, by fax (210) 619-1789, or by e-mail ggjptq@gq r z.com. If you have any questions please feel free to call Emily Grobe, Planner directly at (210) 619-1784. Sincere Emily Grobe Planner Reply Form I am: in favor of ❑ opposed to q neutral to ❑ the request for Z02017-019 COMMENTS: 27 AA� NAME: SIGNATURE (PLEASE PRINT) STREET ADDRESS: 4 DATE: 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210.619,1000 schartz'com Reply Form I am: in favor of opposed to ❑ neutral to ❑ the request for ZC2017-019 COMMENTS: NAM E: A ti SIGNATURE r (PLEASE PRIN e 7-T Y I STREET ADDRESS: o DATE:. /— 9�,3 — J F, ------------ -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Reply Form I am: in favor of opposed to'r-1 neutral to ❑ the request for ZC2017-019 COMMENTS: NAME: SIGNATURE (PLEASE PRINT) STREET ADDRESS: '7rl DATE:. -/- le I am: in favor of B/ opposed to ❑ neutral to 171 the request for Z02017-019 COMMENTS: NAME: I,,-) C, SIGNAT (PLEASE PRINT) STREETADDRESS: (,rM D -A L DATE: 1) - z S- 19 - 1400 Schertz Parkway ri Schertz, Texas 78154 x 210,619.1000 scher--- com Agenda No. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 . Department: Economic Development Subject: Ordinance No. 18 -T -11 — A budget adjustment for the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation in connection with the Performance Agreement with Ace Mart Restaurant Supply; Final reading BACKGROUND In accordance with the Schertz Incentive Policy, the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation (the "SEDC ") entered into a Performance Agreement with Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company ( "Ace Mart"). All economic development incentives that were offered to Ace Mart will be paid from the SEDC. The City will realize the full financial benefits associated with this project. As part of the Performance Agreement, Ace Mart committed to create at least 40 full -time jobs with an annual payroll of $1,178,750. In addition, Ace Mart also agreed to maintain $7,954,095 in taxable personal property and generate at ]east $8 million in sales that are subject to local sales tax collection. In consideration, Ace Mart qualifies to receive an Operations Grant of $225,000 along with six annual grants worth a portion of personal property taxes generated from the City of Schertz. The Performance Agreement was entered into prior to the adoption of the FY 201.7 -18 SEDC Budget but after it was submitted to the City Council. Because of the timing of this project, the funds for the incentives must be transferred from the SEDC reserves to the Development Incentive account. City Council approved this on first reading at their meeting of February 27, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT As of January 31, 2018, the SEDC had total cash and investments of $1.5,291,946.32. As part of this budget adjustment, $225,000 will be transferred from reserves to the Development Incentive account which has a current balance of $1.1.2,500 that is allocated for a different economic incentive. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment as it aligns with the commitments outlined in the Performance Agreement. ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 18 -T -11 ORDINANCE NO. 18 -T -11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN ADJUSTMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR THE OPERATIONS GRANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACE MART RESTAURANT SUPPLY COMPANY PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 1.7 -T -30, the City of Schertz (the "City ") adopted the budget for the City for the fiscal year 2017 -2018 (the "Budge ), which provides funding for the City's operations throughout the 2017 -201.8 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 17 -R -74 the City of Schertz City Council and the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation (the "SEDC ") authorized a Performance Agreement with Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company (the" Performance Agreement "); and WHEREAS, the Performance Agreement entitles Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company to receive certain economic development grants once they have met certain performance requirements as outlined in the Performance Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code Section 505.159, the SEDC held a public hearing on August 24, 2017 for the Performance Agreement with Ace Mart project; and WHEREAS, according the Performance Agreement and the Schertz Incentive Policy, all economic development incentives will be paid from the SEDC funds; and WHEREAS, the Budget transfer is required in the amount of $225,000 from the SEDC's reserves to the Development Incentive account; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adjust the Budget and approve the budget transfer for the Operations Grant in connection with the Performance Agreement with Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Co., 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 transfer $225,000.00 from the SEDC's reserves to the Development Incentives account in connection with the Performance Agreement with Ace Mart Restaurant Supply Company. 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 27th day of February 2018. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, the 13th day of March 0401 ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor -2- Agenda No. 4 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Subject: City Secretary Boards, Commissions and Committee Member Resignations The City Secretary's Department recently received a resignation notice from Ron Washington that effective March 13, 2018 he will be vacating his seat on the Schertz Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. FISCAL IMPACT I�►�Cii T-a RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council accept the resignation of Mr. Ron Washington effective March 13, 2018. ATTACHMENT Resignation Agenda No. 6 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 1.3, 2018 Department: Fire Department Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -32 Authorizing the Acting City Manager to enter into an amended agreement with Physio - Control, Inc. for the lease - purchase of one (1) patient care monitor /defibrillator and total expenditures with Physio- Control, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for fiscal year 2017 -2018. Background The Fire Department responds to over 2,700 requests for service annually. About 65% of these calls are medical responses. On every one of these medical responses a Patient Care Monitor /Defibrillator is utilized to monitor blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the blood, the patient's EKG rhythm, the 12 -lead EKG and, when needed, the delivery of therapeutic electricity to the patient to correct life threatening cardiac dysrhythmias. This Patient Care Monitor /Defibrillator, the LifePak 15 manufactured by Physio - Control is currently in place on our front -line fire apparatus and it is time to purchase one for Engine #3. Pricing was obtained from Physio - Control, Inc. as a sole source provider; and this sole source procurement is allowable under Section 252.022 "General Exemptions" section 7 sub - section D for an expenditure for a procurement of items that are available from only one source, including captive replacement parts or components for equipment. On December 19, 2017, City Council Approved Resolution #17 -R -121 authorizing the City to enter into a five (5) year lease /purchase agreement with Physio - Control for EMS equipment in the amount of $161,392.00. Schertz Fire Department has an opportunity to join the no- interest lease purchase with EMS for this Patient Care Monitor /Defibrillator. This Resolution, amends the previous ]ease /purchase agreement by adding one (1) Patient Care Monitor /Defibrillator for a four (4) year lease purchase agreement that includes a four (4) year service plan which provides on -site annual preventive maintenance and inspections, updates to the software and a loaner device at no cost, if needed. The cost of the Patient Care Monitor /Defibrillator is $42,201.48 or $10,551.37 annually. Goal To authorize the Acting City Manager to enter into an amended agreement, adding a patient care monitor /defibrillator. This amended agreement is for a four -year lease purchase agreement with Physio- Control, Inc. for patient care monitors /defibrillators and total expenditures with Physio- Control, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for fiscal year 2017 -2018. The resolution also authorizes additional miscellaneous purchases from Physio - Control, Inc. of up to an additional $25,000 for this FY 17 -1.8. Fiscal Impact The amendment to the agreement increases the annually cost by $10,550.37 annually or a total of $42,201.48 by the end of the lease which will be funded out of the Fire Department budget. The new total amended annual lease payment for all of the equipment will be $42,828.77 with a new total amount that will be paid over the lease /purchase agreement of $203,593.48. In addition to the lease purchase payments above, Schertz EMS has spent approximately $8,000 with Physio - Control Inc., to date, and Schertz EMS and Fire anticipate additional expenditures with Physio - Control. Inc. for separate, unrelated public health and safety equipment and supplies in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. The annual lease /purchase expenditures and the additional separate, unrelated purchases from Physio - Control, Inc. will not exceed $80,000.00 in FY 17 -18. Funds are currently allocated in the Fire Department budget for the acquisition of this patient care monitor /defibrillator. Recommendation Approval of Resolution 18 -R -32 Attachment(s) Resolution 18 -R -32 Amended Lease /Purchase Agreement from Physio Control RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -32 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH PHYSIO- CONTROL, INC. FOR THE LEASE /PURCHASE OF ONE (1) PATIENT CARE MONITOR/DEFIBRILLATOR AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES WITH PHYSIO- CONTROL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 -2018. WHEREAS, Schertz City Council approved Resolution #17 -R -121 for a 5 year lease /purchase agreement with Physio - Control, Inc in the amount of $161,392.00 for EMS equipment; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has a need to acquire one (1) patient care monitor /defibrillator for Engine #3 and has selected the Physio- Control, Inc. LifePak 15 system with the corresponding service agreement; and WHEREAS, pricing was obtained from Physio - Control, Inc. as a sole source provider; and this sole source procurement is allowable under Section 252.022 "General Exemptions" section 7 sub - section D for an expenditure for a procurement of items that are available from only one source, including captive replacement parts or components for equipment; and WHEREAS, the City of Schertz will fund the lease /purchase of one (1) patient care monitor /defibrillator and service agreements through an amended four (4) year lease /purchase agreement; and WHEREAS, Schertz EMS has spent approximately $8,000 with Physio - Control Inc., to date, and Schertz EMS and Fire anticipate additional expenditures with Physio - Control Inc. for separate, unrelated public health and safety equipment in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Acting City Manager to enter into an amended four year lease /purchase agreement with Physio- Control, Inc. in the amount of $42,828.77 annually for a total lease /purchase cost of $203,593.48, attached in Exhibit A. The annual lease /purchase expenditures and the additional separate, unrelated purchases from Physio - Control, Inc. will not exceed$ 80,000.00 in FY 17 -18. 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. 50234811.1 A -1. 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 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) 50234811.1 A -2 Stryker Amendment No. 001 to Short Form Agreement No. 0110034329 Owner: Flex Financial, a division of Stryker Sales Corporation Address: 1901 Romence Road Parkway Portage, MI 49001 Check if applicable: X Restated equipment: X Restated service coverage: Additional term in months: X New payment amount: Amendment Effective Date: Signature Date Amendment proposal valid through last business day of February, 2018 Customer: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Address: 1400 SCHERTZ PKWY SCHERTZ, Texas 78154 -1634 See Part 1 on attached Exhibit A See Part II on attached Exhibit A 4 Annual Payments of $42,828.77(plus applicable sales /use /taxes) Owner and Customer desire to amend the agreement described above (the "Agreement "), as follows: 1. Restated equipment: If checked above, the equipment described in Part I on Exhibit A is hereby restated as the "Equipment' subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, which if adding Equipment such added Equipment shall be shipped to Customer within a reasonable time after this Amendment is signed by Customer and returned to Owner. 2. Restated service coverage: If checked above, the service described in Part II- Service Coverage in the attached Exhibit A shall supersede and replace Part I- Service Coverage set forth in the original Exhibit A to the Agreement, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date. 3. Additional term in months: If checked above, the term of the Agreement is extended for the number of additional months described above and payments (as modified herein) shall continue to be due during such extension. If not checked above, the term of the Agreement will not be extended and the payments (as modified herein) shall be due during the remainder of the Term. 4. New payment amount: If checked above, commencing on the first date a payment is due under the Agreement subsequent to the Amendment Effective Date, the payments due under the Agreement shall be the New Payment Amount. 5. New payment amount adjustment: The New Payment Amount was calculated by Owner based, in part, on a rate reported in the "Interest rate swaps" section of Federal Reserve Statistical Release H -15 and in the event the Amendment Effective Date starts more than 30 days after Owner sends this Amendment to Customer, Owner may adjust the New Payment Amount once to compensate it, in good faith, for any increase in such rate. 6. Insurance: Customer agrees to provide proof of insurance with respect to any added Equipment in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. 7. Miscellaneous: All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment will have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.The terms of this Amendment shall be effective for all purposes as of the Amendment Effective Date. Except to the extent modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. All terms and conditions of the Agreement are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Customer signature Signature: Dater Print name: Title: Accepted by Flex Financial, a division of Stryker Sales Corp. Signature: Date: Print name: Title: Exhibit A to Amendment No. 001 to Short Form Agreement No. 0110034329 Customer name: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Delivery address: 1400 SCHERTZ PKWY, SCHERTZ, Texas 78154 -1634 Part I - Equipment Current equipment Model No. Description Qty 9999 - 999 -999 LUCAS 3.0 Chest Compression System on Physio Quote Number 00105481 1 Restated equipment (Items underlined reflect items being added to the Agreement) Model No. Description Qty 9999 - 999 -999 LUCAS 3.0 Chest Compression System on Physic Quote Number 00105481 1 9999 - 999 -999 LIFEPAK 15 V4 on Phvsio Quote Number 00114136 1 Service Coverage Current Service Model No. Description Yrs Qty 9999 -999-999 LUCAS Service - 4 YEAR on Physio Quote Number 00105481 4 1 Restated Service (items underlined reflect items being added to the Agreement) Model No. Description Yrs Qt 9999 - 999 -999 LUCAS Service - 4 YEAR on Physio Quote Number 00105481 4 1 9999 - 999 -999 LIFEPAK 15 Service - 4 YEAR on Physio Quote Number 00114136 3.92 1 To SCHERTZ EMS Attn: Jason MebbKt, EMS Director 1400 SCHERTZ PKVVY SCNERTZ.TX7B154 (210) 619-1400 Quote Number 00114136 Ravision# 1 Created Date 2/14/2018 Sales Consultant Chad Lewis (210) 884-0891 oh d! i FOB Redmond, WA Terms All quotes subject ho credit approval and the following terms and conditions NET Terms NET 30 Quote Number: OO11413G USD 42,016,47 USD 0.00 Tax will be calculated at time of invoice and is based on the Ship To location where product will be shipped. Quote Number: 00114136 51301MRJVA� Pricing Summary Totals USD 48,457.00 USD -1,058.40 USD -5,382,13 USD 0,00 USD 185,00 GRAND TOTAL FOR THIS QUOTE 91,1111ing Address same as address an quote Shipping Address same as Bilfing Add rass Account Name Address city State Zip Code Accou nts Payable Contart I nformation Accounts Payable Contact Accounts Payable E mai I Authorized Customer %Ignature Name TitIE, Optional information: Account Name Address City State Zip Code Accounts Payable Phone Number Customer is Tax Exempt? Yes No Signature Date Quote Number: 00114136 City Council Meeting: Department: Subject: BACKGROUND Goal Agenda No. 6 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM March 13, 2018 Fire Department Resolution No. 18 -R -31 — Authorizing the Fire Department to submit a grant application to the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division, for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) The Fire Department seeks Council approval to apply for the 2018 State Homeland Security Program (HSGP) Grant funds to purchase Technical Rescue and Hazmat Equipment. Schertz Fire Department is a founding member of the FEMA Type III, GuadaComa Emergency Response Group that includes New Braunfels, Seguin, Cibolo, Selma and the Guadalupe, Comal and Bexar county area. The team currently covers 395 square miles of 3 counties ( Bexar, Coma] and Guadalupe Counties). The estimated population in this area is approximately 235,000. This group's sole purpose is to work jointly to mitigate hazardous material incidents to limit the public and commercial impact of these situations. In addition, Schertz Fire Department participates in numerous mutual aid agreements including regional and statewide responses. Schertz Fire Department is attempting to secure grant funds to purchase multi -use equipment that will increase the capacity of the GuadaComa Emergency Response Group and can be used daily on calls for service within the Schertz city limits. In hazardous material situations and almost every other firefighting operation, proper breathing air protects firefighters during operations on emergency scenes. Schertz Fire Department is seeking a mobile air compressor to be able to refill self - contained breathing cylinders while at a scene. Schertz Fire Department is also seeking a Ford F -550 crew -cab pickup to transport technical rescue and hazmat equipment. We are also seeking technical rescue equipment, called the Absolute Flying Raker that would allow us to stabilize walls and other large equipment including tractor trailers and train cars. This product is made by Paratech and is compatible with other products we use from the same manufacture. Summary of Recommended Action Recommend approval. FISCAL IMPACT None. Equipment is expected to cost $92,203.00, of which all $92,203.00 will be state funds and no matching City funds are required. Recommend approval. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 18 -R -31 RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -31 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $92,203.00 TO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, HOMELAND SECURITY DIVISION, FOR THE 2018 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT (HSGP) PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FUNDS, UPON AWARD. WHEREAS, the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division (HSD) is a program that is designed to enhance the State's ability to prevent, respond to; and recover from acts of terrorism; and WHEREAS, the City Staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City Council authorize the filing of a grant application with Homeland Security Grant Program relating to Hazmat and Technical Rescue Equipment for Schertz Fire Rescue; and WHEREAS, no matching contribution is required; and WHEREAS, The City of Schertz agrees that in the event of loss or misuse of the Office of the Governor funds, The City of Schertz assures that the funds will be returned to the Office of the Governor in full. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to apply for a grant from the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division (HSD). BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCILL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The Acting City Manager is hereby authorized to submit a grant application in an amount not to exceed $92,203.00 to the Office of the Governor, Homeland Security Division to fund the following State Homeland Security Grant (HSGP) Projects: Grant # 3664001 - Fire Services Regional Response Capabilities Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Acting City Manager as the grantee's authorized official. The authorized official is given the power to apply for, accept, reject, alter or terminate the grant on behalf of the applicant agency. Section 3. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the City Council. Section 4. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 5. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 6. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 7. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 8. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) Agenda No. 7 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Acting City Manager Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -33 - Appointing members to the Alamo Area Council of Governments Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (REPAC) BACKGROUND The Alamo Area Council of Governments ( AACOG) was established in 1967 under Chapter 391 of the Local Government Code as a voluntary association of local governments and organizations that serves its members through planning, information, and coordination activities. AACOG serves the Alamo Area /State Planning Region 18, which covers 13 counties and 12,582 square miles. Counties comprising the area planning region are Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, .Kerr, Medina, McMullen, and Wilson counties. AACOG's mission is to enhance the quality of life of all residents of the Alamo Region in partnership with elected and appointed officials, fenders, community partners and beneficiaries. AACOG has several standing and advisory committees and one of the committees is their Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (REPAC). REPAC establishes and updates the regional priorities of funding for projects needing State Homeland Security Grant funds. The priorities will be based upon state guidelines and regional planning assessments conducted by the REPAC. Each member that is appointed to REPAC will serve a term of two years. Approximately two years ago, staff asked Council to appoint then Assistant Fire Chief Kade Long as the primary representative (and voting member) to REPAC with EMS Operations Manager Toni Bradford and Police Lieutenant Thad Siwecki being appointed as alternates. Staff is now recommending that Fire Chief Kade Long be reappointed as the primary representative to REPAC and that Assistant Fire Chief Kyle McAfee and Police Lieutenant Kelly Kallies be appointed as alternates. FISCAL IMPACT None City Council Memorandum Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council reappoints Fire Chief Kade Long as the City's primary representative on REPAC. Staff also recommends that Council appoints Assistant Fire Chief Kyle McAfee as the City's first alternate representative to serve on REPAC. This appointment is a replacement of EMS Operations Manager Toni Bradford. Staff also recommends Council appoint Police Lieutenant Kelly Kallies, as the City's second alternate representative to serve on REPAC. This appointment is a replacement of Police Lieutenant Thad Siwecki. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 18 -R -33 Mayor's Letter requesting voting seat RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -33 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, Membership in AACOG is open to all governmental units in the 13- county Alamo area planning region. A governmental unit is any county, city, town, village, authority, district, or other political subdivision of the State of Texas. WHEREAS, ACCOG members are allowed to appoint a representative to the Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Council (REPAC); and WHEREAS, REPAC members meet monthly to review, draft, and approve regional emergency strategic plans, Threat, Hazard Identification Risk Assessments (THIRA), and the State Preparedness Report; and WHEREAS, REPAC members meet annually to set regional homeland security priorities of funding for projects applying for the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant; and WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City of Schertz have representation on the Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee by appointing members of the Fire, and Police departments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to reappoint Fire Chief Kade Long as the primary representative and Assistant Fire Chief Kyle McAffee and Police Lieutenant Kelly Kallies as alternate representatives to serve on REPAC for the next two years; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the reappointment Fire Chief Kade Long as the primary representative and Assistant Chief Kyle McAfee and Police Lieutenant Kelly Kallies as alternate representatives to REPAC for a term not to exceed two years and that appointed members are authorized to execute any and all necessary actions on behalf of the City of Schertz to promote homeland security and "all hazards" preparedness within the region. 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 13th day of March, 2018. . City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor Michael R. Carpenter Mayor. March 13, 2018 Ms. Marcela T. Medina, Public Safety Director The Alamo Area Council of Governments 8700 Tesoro Drive San Antonio TX 78217 Dear Ms. Medina: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY HALL, SCHERTZ This memo reappoints Fire Chief Kade Long as the City of Schertz's primary voting representative on REPAC. Additionally, the City has appointed Assistant Fire Chief Kyle McAfee as the City's first alternate representative to serve on REPAC. This appointment is a replacement of EMS Operations Manager Toni Bradford. The City has also appointed Police Lieutenant Kelly Kallies as the City's second alternate representative to serve on REPAC. This appointment is a replacement of Police Lieutenant Thad Siwecki. Appointed members are authorized to execute any and all necessary actions on behalf of the City of Schertz to promote homeland security and "all hazards" preparedness within the region. . Sincerely, Michael R. Carpenter Mayor Community. Service. Opportunity. 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210 - 619 -1040 Agenda No. 8 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: City Management Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -27 Approving a Resolution appointing Charles Kelm to the Board of Directors filling the remaining term of Place D -2 of the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) vacated by the resignation of Andrew Hunt. The Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) was formed in 1999 to provide drinking water to the cities of Schertz and Seguin. SSLGC has a five member board each with a five year term. The member cities alternate filling the five seats with one of them expiring each year. In January 2016, the City of Schertz filled Board position D -2 with Andrew Hunt. Andrew is an engineer and project manager and had been representing the City's interests well, however, in January of 2018, Andrew notified staff that he would be moving out of the city limits and would be resigning his board seat. Since this seat was filled by the City of Schertz, we get to refill it for the current term to keep the rotation consistent. It is staff s recommendation that the City of Schertz appoint Mr. Charles Kelm to serve on the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) Board of Directors Place D -2 for the remaining term that will end on December 31, 2020 (the "Term "). Mr. Kelm is a retired Air Force officer with extensive leadership experience. He resided in Schertz during his career and after his retirement, he and his family returned to the City for their permanent home. Mr. Kelm has been anxious to get involved in serving within the City. He applied as our Public Works Director and was a strong candidate progressing through the selection process until he removed himself to pursue other opportunities. In our conversations, he is excited about this opportunity to serve the community and believes with his engineering and leadership background that he will be a good contribution to the SSLGC Board. FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Approval of Resolution No. 18-R-27 appointing Mr. Charles Kelm to the Board of Directors Place D-2 of the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation. ATTACHMENT(S) Resolution No. 18-R-27 Charles Kelm Resume RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -27 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPOINTING CHARLES KELM TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PLACE D -2 OF THE SCHERTZ SEGUIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, City Council appointed Andrew Hunt to the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) Board of Directors Place D -2 on January 1, 2016 with a five year term ending on December 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, in January, 2018, . Andrew Hunt notified the City that he would need to resign from his seat on the SSLGC Board of Directors due to relocating outside of the City Limits leaving approximately three years of his term that needs to be refilled; and WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") is recommending that the City appoint Charles Kelm to serve on the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation ( "SSLGC ") Board of Directors Place D -2 for the remainder of the term ending on December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to appoint Charles Kelm to the SSLGC Board of Directors Place D -2 for the remainder of the Term; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby appoints Charles Kelm to serve on the SSLGC Board of Directors for the recommended Term. 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 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) Agenda No. 9 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: Planning & Community Development/ Information Technology/ Economic Development Subject: Resolution No: 18 -R -20 Consideration and /or action approving a Resolution authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute and deliver a contract with CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $629,586 related to software and implementation services for a community development system. BACKGROUND Currently, the Planning and Community Development Department is using Incode for permit processing, inspection records and fee collection; WebQA for on -line customer inspection requests, an Access database for Planning Division projects and a number of paper processes. On average per year it is estimated that the Planning and Community Development Department processes 1.25 planning and zoning cases, 4,400 permits, performs 3,950 plan reviews and 14,000 inspections. Relying heavily on computer systems which do not communicate with each other and being bound by an all paper system has a number of drawbacks which cause inefficiency, complex processes and items to be lost or misplaced. Collectively, the above challenges place a burden on staff, making it difficult to provide the exceptional levels of service given to customers, time - consuming to administer current systems, and tough to keep pace with growing demands. Staff has made customer service improvements, especially over the last two years when two kiosk computer stations were added to the lobby of City Hall to allow people to fill out their permits and print them and the in -house modification to the WebQA system to allow customers /homeowners to request inspections online. Both of these improvements have increased our responsiveness but are temporary fixes to the overarching need for a unified solution. To solve these issues, staff began looking at new software to replace outdated software and automate business processes. This search began several years ago with staff members researching and viewing demonstrations of municipal planning and permitting software. This research created a baseline understanding of what was out in the market and how this type of solution could help improve our business. Additionally, the research showed that it is important to holistically view the development of the built environment, at which point the other departments that participate in development were brought onto the project and the scope changed from just needing a new software solution for Planning and Community Development to needing a solution for City wide development and permitting. As a result, the Planning and Community Development, IT, GIS, Code Enforcement, Economic Development, Engineering, Fire, Public Works and Parks Departments teamed up to discuss important software elements and a Request for Proposals (RFP) for new software that was drafted and published in September 2017. This RFP was designed to solicit proposals to improve citywide permitting and plan review processes. The RFP focused on the following important features in order for City Staff to respond to the needs and requests of residents, developers, builders, and other customer involved in the continued growth of the City: • Property information is based in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data • Electronic plan review • Mobile or remote accessibility for field inspections • Online public/ customer service web portal • Hosted on premise • Can utilize laserfiche for document management The RFP was very detailed and drafted with an extensive list of technical requirements. The City received three (3) responses to the RFP. After full evaluation of the responses, reference checks and software demonstrations CityView software was selected as the software to meet our needs. The CityView software solution begins with GIS property data that is then used to create all the various permits and projects across all City departments. With this centralized property information, records can now be tied to a geographic location which allows for the collection . of legacy data that shows the history of development activity and permits for every department. For example, the software is able to follow the same area of land from annexation, through zoning, platting, site planning, permitting, and finish with any code violation that could occur. All of the different permits and steps in development (or redevelopment) are able to be linked to one another and even build on the information from previous permits. The integration of GIS data and maps provides an additional convenience for customers and residents who will be able to select a location on a map to begin a code complaint or start a permit if they do not know the property address. Added to this is the ability to conduct digital plan review and track plan reviews. Most projects and permits require multiple departments to participate in plan review, the ability of the CityView software to manage and organize these reviews will be instrumental in reducing review times. Digital plan review is a big step toward going paperless. This will greatly improve organization within the departments as well as provide specific redline markups with comments to the applicant that is beneficial to our customers. Redline markups allow design professionals and contractors to see the specific areas that need correction and will reduce both the amount of time they need to correct and resubmit plans as well as the overall number of reviews needed before the plans are approved. Another key feature is the automation of processes. The CityView software is designed around workflow processes which will automate certain steps that currently are done manually. This includes to name a few; routing plans for review to various departments, generation of form template letters, automated emailed correspondence and updates to applicants and internal staff, generation of to -do lists, conversion and storage of records in Laserfiche. The automation of these time consuming but needed processes will decrease the overall time it takes a project to go through the review, permitting, and inspection processes. CityView has an online customer portal which will allow customers, residents and land owners to report code violations, submit permits online, pay fees, receive staff generated review comments, request inspections and even be issued Permits or Certificates of Occupancy. This will add much improved convenience for residents, contractors and developers as they will be able to login to the web portal and submit applications and even check real time status of their projects all without having to leave their home, office, or job site. The web portal will also help contractors with multiple open permits stay organized, by displaying real time permit or inspection status. For example a home builder would be able to login and check the review status of their building permit applications, then print out the building permit for any approved site, and even request inspections for their projects under construction. With the online portal, digital plan review, and automation of processes, it is expected that this solution will make development in the City a near paperless process. In addition to being environmentally conscious, this will reduce costs for developers as large format printing can be very expensive especially for large plan sets. It is also more convenient for customers because they will not have to send a courier to City Hall to drop off plans, which can add time and extra expense to projects. The CityView Code Enforcement module is very dynamic featuring the online web portal for customers and residents to submit code complaints and then track the status of their complaint. Additionally, the automated workflows will help staff ensure all complaints are investigated and managed in a timely manner. There is a companion mobile app that will assist the Code Enforcement officers in investigating complaints, entering new code violations, and access needed related information all while out in the field. The interrelation of all the CityView functions allows each department to view what projects or permits are underway and even place notifications or holds based on open code violations or incomplete prerequisites. The implementation of the software solution will be part of a planned IT project to upgrade and virtualize city servers. The IT Dept. has been setting aside funds for 4 years to migrate the City's server infrastructure to a fully redundant virtualized platform. Because of the mission - critical nature of the planning software project it was chosen to be the first system to be implemented on the new platform. This phase of the virtualization project is budgeted at $70,000. This is approximately half of the total amount reserved. The IT Dept. will release the RFP for this phase of the virtualization project once the planning software contract is signed and infrastructure specifications are finalized. It is anticipated that the new infrastructure will be in place within 30 days after a vendor is selected and will not impact the implementation schedule for the planning software. With the efficiency and organization that CityView will provide it is anticipated that all development processes will improve in permitting timeframes; plan review timeframes as well as improve the overall customer /resident experience of developing within Schertz. COMMUNITY BENEFIT CityView was the most qualified software that addressed all of the important features identified by City departments involved in development. CityView software will increase efficiency, reduce errors and enable enhanced performance, which includes improved coordination, centralized data and mobile inspections. Developers and contractors will benefit greatly from the web portal which will allow them to conduct business with the City from the convenience of their home or office, in a very organized efficient manner, decreasing overall project timeframes while receiving superior customer service. Residents and home owners will benefit from being able to apply for and track permits online and also report and track code complaints without having to leave work to stop by City Hall. Additionally, the time saved through online permit submittal will free up staff to provide more personalized service to those residents who are not familiar with the permitting process and may need more assistance. Overall CityView will improve the customer/ resident experience. Staff anticipates it will take 9 to 12 months to get the software fully up and running, but the implementation schedule will be finalized after execution of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact for the Community Development Software over 5 years is $714,086. The contract for CityView is for $629,586. The implementation and first year expenses are $523,766. Funding for the FY 17 -18 expenses comes from the following: $110,000 General fund contribution as approved in the last 3 budget years $265,000 EDC contribution $70,000 General fund contribution as approved in the budget for IT Server virtualization project $35,672 Contingency fund $3,525 Bluebeam Annual Software maintenance A short summary of the fees is attached for your review as well as all associated contracts which include a full breakdown of fees. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that Council authorize the Acting City Manager to negotiate, execute and deliver the contract with CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $629,586 related to software and implementation services for a community development system. ATTACHMENTS Budget Summary for Community Development Software Resolution 18 -R -20 Contract RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -20 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CITYVIEW, AN UNINCORPORATED DIVISION OF N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION, FOR SOFTWARE AND IlVIPLEMENATION SERVICES FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT SYSTEM AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City solicited competitive sealed proposals from qualified vendors for software and implementation services for a community development system in connection with; and WHEREAS, after extensive analysis of the responses provided by each of the three (3) prospective vendors, City staff is confident that CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation 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 CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation pursuant to the recommendation made by Community Development System review committee. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Acting City Manager to execute and deliver the contract with CityView, an unincorporated division of N. Harris Computer Corporation. in an amount not to exceed $629,586 related to software and implementation services for a community development system. 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 13th day of March, 2018 ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor M Budget for Community Development Software Project Licensing/ Configuration /Installation Licensing ($164,510) Professional services ($205,787) Travel Expenses ($22,350 estimated) $392,647.00 Bluebeam Revu Annual Maintenance (year 0)* $1,185.00 Bluebeam Studio Prime Level 1 Subscription (year 0)* $2,340.00 Server Hardware (Server Virtualization) * ** $70,000.00 User Hardware upgrade ($500 allowance per) * ** $9,500.00 Incode Customization for financials * ** $5,000.00 Subtotal for GoLive $480,672.00 Year 1 Maintenance Annual Software Maintenance (Year 1) ** $39,569.00 Bluebeam Revu Annual Maintenance (year 1)* $1,185.00 Bluebeam Studio Prime Level 1 Subscription (year 1)* $2,340.00 Subtotal for Year 1 Maintenance $43,094.00 *Bluebeam maintenance is due upon installation which is prior to GoLive * *to be included in the FY 18 -19 IT budget for software maintenance ** *not part of CityView contract Year 2 Maintenance $44,818.00 Year 3 Maintenance $46,611.00 Year 4 Maintenance $48,476.00 Year 5 Maintenance $50,415.00 Total CityView Contract over 5 years $629,586.00 Total Project Costs $714,086.00 General fund (software $110,000) EDC (software $265,000) IT (server hardware $70,000) Contengency fund ($39,197) FY 17 -18 Budget $484,197.00 FY 18 -19 IT Software Maintenance Budget (General Fund) $39,569.00 Year 2, 3, 4, 5 Annual Software Maintenance $190,320.00 Total project funding $714,086.00 The Code Enforcement Module is included in the costs provided above but if the module was purchased seperately the cost is provided below: Code Enforcement Licensing /Cofiguration /Training Costs CityView Code Enforcement Module /Portal /Mobile $17,050.00 Professional services for Code Enforcement $35,350.00 Expenses (miscellaneous) $900.00 Training for Code Enforcement $5,032.00 Total for Code Enforcement Licensing $58,332.00 Discount Provided by CityView for inclusion of Code Enforcement with implementation ($10,375M) of Community Development software. Total with discount for Code Enforcement $47,957.00 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 . Department: Engineering Agenda No. 10 Subject: Ordinance No. 18 -M -13 — Conduct a public hearing and consideration and/or action approving an Ordinance amending Chapter 78, Article VII of the Code of Ordinances to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts an Ordinance to adopt a roadway impact fee that may be imposed on new development for use to construct roadway facilities in the City. (:B. James /K. Woodlee) First Reading BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with Freese and Nichols, Inc., (FNI) to update the City's Thoroughfare Plan and develop a roadway impact fee ordinance for the City of Schertz. A roadway impact fee (also known as a capital recovery fee) provides a funding mechanism for the implementation of roadway improvements that add capacity necessitated by new development. It also provides a basis for a Schertz specific rough proportionality analysis. The City currently charges water and sewer impact fees. The Texas Local Government Code (TLGC) establishes the rules and process required to adopt impact fees. The first step required City Council to adopt Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan for the area where fees are to be charged to be used as a basis for the calculation of maximum assessable capital recovery, or impact, fees. Those documents were adopted by Council via Resolution 17 -R -107 on November 28, 2017. . Based on those approved documents, FNI prepared a report that explains the methodology and calculation results of a study to determine the maximum assessable fee rates that may be charged by the City of Schertz to new development within the City limits. The maximum assessable impact fee rates per service unit calculated for each service area are as follows: City Council Memorandum Page 2 • Service Area 1 - $1,647.53 • Service Area 2 - $1,327.89 • Service Area 3 - $1,044.48 • Service Area 4 - $2,392.72 It should be noted that the calculated fees include a reduction based on a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues expected to be generated by improvements over the program period. City staff met with the following groups to present the Roadway Impact Fee Study findings and to gather feedback regarding the possible implementation of a roadway impact fee in the City of Schertz. • Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (includes Planning and Zoning Commissioners) (CIAC) — 3 meetings • Committee of Committees Advisory Board (CCAB) • Transportation Safety Advisory Commission (TSAC) • Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Board of Directors • Community Focus Groups including Developers, Development Engineers, Home Builders, and Existing Business Owners /Representatives — 3 meetings City Council approved Resolution 1.8 -R -1.0 setting the date for the public hearing to consider adoption of a roadway impact fee ordinance. Based on input from various groups and a recommendation from the CIAC, the proposed roadway impact fee (capital recovery fee) ordinance has been drafted to include the following stipulations. 1. The same rates are to be collected city -wide. This creates parity across the city and does not act to deter or encourage development in any particular part of the city. It also simplifies the administration of the program. 2. Residential rates per service unit are set as follows: a. $600 in years 1 and 2 (equates to $2,022 per house) b. $800 in year 3 (equates to $2,696 per house) c. $900 in year 4 (equates to $3,033 per house) d. $ 1,000 in year 5 (equates to $3,370 per house) 3. Non - residential rates per service unit are set as follows: a. $1.00 in years 1 through 3 b. $175 in years 4 and 5 4. Developments already underway will be phased in as follows: a. Development on a lot for which a plat has been recorded prior to adoption of the ordinance will not be charged the fee for any building permit application submitted within 1.8 months after the adoption of the ordinance. City Council Memorandum Page 3 b. Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to adoption of the ordinance will not be charged the fee for any building permit application submitted within 12 months after the adoption of the ordinance. c. Any other development will be charged an impact fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance. 5. A mechanism is included in the ordinance to provide for offsets of impact fees equal to the capacity added to the city's thoroughfare system. Offsets will be expressed and calculated on a service unit (vehicle -mile) basis. 6. The ordinance includes the provision that service areas, the capital improvements plan, and collection rates may be changed periodically. In accordance with TLGC Chapter 395.052, the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan must be updated at least every five years. The maximum assessable fees will be recalculated at that time or sooner, if appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed roadway impact fee ordinance will generate additional revenue for the City that can only be used to add capacity of system roadways. The amount actually collected will depend on the amount, type and location (service area) of development as well as offsets provided from roads constructed by developers. It should be noted that at year 5 (full phase in) the City is proposing to charge approximately 67% of the median maximum assessable impact (of all the service areas) for residential and approximately 12% for non - residential. The difference in funds needed to construct roadways necessitated by new development will have to come from some other source (general funds — directly or bonds, matching grants, etc.). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance No. 18 -M -13. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 18 -M -13 including Exhibits: Exhibit A — Code Amendment Exhibit B — Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final Report Exhibit C — 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report (Capital Recovery Plan) Exhibit D — Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report Letter of Recommendation from CIAC CIAC Draft Minutes from February 7, 2018 ORDINANCE NO. 18 -M -13 ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SCIIERTZ, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS BY ADOPTING CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE VII: ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES; INCORPORATING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR SUCH FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED; PROVIDING FOR USE OF PROCEEDS FROM IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City of Schertz is responsible for and committed to the provision of public facilities at levels necessary to cure any existing roadway facility deficiencies in already developed areas and insure the provisions of adequate roadway facilities in the future; and WHEREAS, such facilities shall be provided by the City utilizing funds allocated in the capital budget and capital improvements programming processes and relying upon the funding sources indicated therein; and WHEREAS, new residential and nonresidential development causes and imposes increased demands upon roadway facilities that would not otherwise occur; and WHEREAS, planning projections indicate that such development will continue and will place ever - increasing demands on the City to provide necessary roadway facilities improvements and expansion; and WHEREAS, to the extent that such new development places demands upon the roadway facility infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by more equitably assigning responsibility for financing the provision of such facilities from the public at large to the developments actually creating the demands for them; and WHEREAS, the amount of the roadway capital recovery fee to be imposed shall be determined by the cost of the additional roadway facilities needed to support such development, which roadway facilities shall be identified in a capital improvements program; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved land use assumptions and capital improvement plans for purposes of adopting roadway capital recovery fees; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, and upon . recommendations from the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee hereby finds and declares that roadway capital recovery fees imposed upon residential and nonresidential development to finance specified public roadway facilities, the demand for which is created by such development, is in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and Pagel of 3 its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on such development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in all things the City has complied with said Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as the applicable state statute in the notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology necessary to adopt Roadway Capital Recovery Fees; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: Section 1. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Schertz is hereby amended by adding Chapter 78 Article VII Roadway Capital Recovery Fees as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 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 13th day of March, 2018. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED ON SECOND READING, the day of .2018. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Mayor, Michael R. Carpenter City Secretary, Brenda Dennis (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A: Code Amendment EXHIBIT B: Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final ReportEXHIBIT C: 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report EXHIBIT D: Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report Page 3 of 3 ARTICLE VII.- ROADWAY CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 78 -170. Short title. This article be known and cited as the Schertz Roadway Capital Recovery Fees Article. Sec. 78 -171. - Purpose. This article is intended to ensure the provision of adequate roadway facilities to serve new development in the city by requiring each development to pay its share of the costs of such improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development. Sec. 78 -172. - Authority. This article is adopted pursuant to V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Ch. 395 and the City Charter. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to limit the power of the city to utilize all powers and procedures authorized under V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Ch. 395, or other methods authorized under state law or pursuant to other city powers to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, either in substitution or in conjunction with this article. Guidelines may be developed by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise to implement and administer this article. Sec. 78 -173. - Definitions. Assessment means the determination of the amount of the maximum capital recovery fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this article. The amount of the capital recovery fee per service unit is a measure of the traffic impact on system facilities created by the new development. Capital improvement means a roadway facility with a life expectancy of three or more years, to be owned and operated by or on behalf of the city (including the city's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system). "Capital improvement" applies to a newly constructed roadway facility or to the expansion of an existing roadway facility necessary to serve new development. Capital improvements plan for roadway capital recovery fees identifies the capital improvements or facility expansions and associated costs for each roadway service area that are necessitated by and which are attributable to new development within the service area, for a period not to exceed ten years, which capital improvements are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of roadway capital recovery fees pursuant to this article. The capital improvements plan for roadway capital recovery fees is set out in the adopted "Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Final Report" adopted by resolution of the city council, and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as exhibit B. Capital recovery fee or roadway capital recovery fee (also referred to as roadway impact fee) means a charge or assessment imposed by the city, pursuant to this article, against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. "Capital recovery fees" or "roadway capital recovery fees" do not include road escrow payments for site - related facilities imposed under facility agreements in existence on the effective date of this article. The term also does not include dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of drainage facilities, streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by the subdivision ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development. Capital recovery plan or Impact fee plan means the plan that identifies the calculation of the maximum assessable capital recovery fee for each service area based on the adopted capital improvements plan and land use assumptions. The capital recovery plan is set out in the "2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Final Report" and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as exhibit C. City means the City of Schertz, Texas. Credit means: (1) When used in the context of determining the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit, an amount equal to: a. That portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or b. In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan; or (2) When used in the context of determining the offset for system facilities, the amount of the reduction of an capital recovery fee designed to fairly reflect the value of any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of a system facility agreed to or required by the city as a condition of development approval, pursuant to rules herein established or pursuant to city council - approved administrative guidelines which value shall be credited on a vehicle mile basis against roadway facilities capital recovery fees otherwise due from the development and which credits are hereinafter referred to as an "offset" or "offsets" to avoid confusion. Development unit or development units is the expression of the magnitude of the transportation demand created by each land use planned within a particular development and is used to compute the number of service units consumed by each individual land use application. Final plat recordation or recordation of a final plat means the point at which the applicant has complied with all conditions precedent to recording an approved final plat (minor plat or record plat) in the county, including the final completion of and acceptance by the city of any infrastructure or other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance or any other ordinance and the plat is filed for record with the county clerk's office. Land use assumptions means and includes a description of the service areas and the projections of population and employment growth and associated changes in land uses, densities and intensities adopted by the city, as may be amended from time to time, in each service area over a ten -year period upon which the roadway improvements plan is based. The land use assumptions are set out in the adopted document "Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions Final Report" adopted by resolution of the city council, and attached to Ord. No. 18 -M -13 as Exhibit D. Land use vehicle -mile equivalency table or LUVMET is a table that provides the standardized measure of consumption or use of roadway facilities attributable to a new development based on the land use category of the development and historical data and trends applicable to the city during the previous ten years. The LUVMET recognizes and expresses the magnitude of the transportation demand created by different land use categories within a particular development and allow different uses of land to more accurately bear the cost and expense of the impacts generated by such uses. The LUVMET expresses the number of service units consumed by each individual land use application as "vehicle miles (per development unit)." The applicable LUVMET is included by reference as Table 7 of the capital recovery plan. For land use categories with no applicability to those on Table 7, the applicant may petition for the use of an appropriate vehicle -mile equivalent by submitting a trip generation study including trip rates and lengths reflecting specific conditions of the proposed land use and local trip lengths. The study must include enough data to be statistically valid and approval will be at the discretion of the City Manager or designee. New development means a project involving the subdivision of land and/or the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, or any use or extension of the use of land which has the effect of increasing the requirements for capital improvements, measured by an increase in the number of service units to be generated by such activity, and which requires either the approval and filing with the county of a plat pursuant to the city's subdivision ordinance or the issuance of a building permit. Offset or offsets means the amount of the reduction of an capital recovery fee designed to fairly reflect the value of any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of a system facility agreed to or required by the city as a condition of development approval, pursuant to rules herein established, using the values established in the capital recovery plan, or pursuant to city council- approved administrative guidelines which value shall be credited on a vehicle mile basis against roadway facilities capital recovery fees otherwise due from the development. Preliminary plat approval means the point at which the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval and the plat has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Recoup means to reimburse the city for capital improvements which the city has previously installed or caused to be installed. Roadway means any freeway, expressway or arterial or collector streets or roads designated in the city's adopted master thoroughfare plan, as may be amended from time to time. The term includes the city's share of costs for roadways designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system. Roadway facility means an improvement or appurtenance to a roadway which includes, but is not limited to, rights -of -way, whether conveyed by deed or easement; intersection . improvements; traffic signals; turn lanes; drainage facilities associated with the roadway; street lighting or curbs. "Roadway facility" also includes any improvement or appurtenance to an intersection with a roadway officially enumerated in the federal or state highway system. ":Roadway facility" includes the city's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated as a numbered highway on the official federal or state highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and the establishment of curbs, gutters, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way. "Roadway facility" excludes those improvements or appurtenances to a roadway which are site - related facilities. Roadway service area or roadway benefits area means the geographic area(s) within the city's corporate limits, which do not exceed six miles and within which geographic area(s) roadway capital recovery fees for capital improvements will be collected for new development occurring within such area, and within which fees so collected will be expended for those capital improvements identified in the capital improvements plan to be located within the roadway service area. "Roadway service area" does not include any land outside the city limits. Roadway service areas are shown on Figure 1 of the capital recovery plan. Service unit means one vehicle mile of travel in the afternoon peak hour of traffic and is also referred to as a "vehicle mile." Service unit equivalent means the amount of capacity created by contribution of a capital improvement on behalf of a new development, expressed in vehicle miles. Single family residential lot means a lot platted to accommodate a single family or a duplex dwelling unit, as authorized under the city's zoning regulations. Site - related facility means an improvement or facility which is constructed for the primary use or benefit of a new development and /or which is for the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of roadway facilities to serve the new development and which is not included in the roadway improvements plan and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under the subdivision, and/or other applicable, regulations. System facility means a capital improvement which is designated in the capital improvements plan and which is not a site - related facility. A system facility may include a capital improvement which is located off -site, within, or on and along the perimeter of the new development site. Sec. 78 -174. - Applicability. The provisions of this article apply to all new developments within the corporate boundaries of the city. The provisions of this article apply uniformly within each roadway benefit area. Sec. 78 -1.75. — Roadway capital recovery fees per service unit. (a) The maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit (post- credit) for any use in each service area shall be as calculated and documented in the capital recovery plan as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 1 is $1,647.53. 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 2 is $1,327.89. 3. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 3 is $1,044.48. 4. The capital recovery fee per service unit in Service Area 4 is $2,392.72. (b) The assessable capital recovery fee per service unit set forth herein that is assessed to new development, as may be amended from time to time, is declared to be the roughly proportionate measure of the impact(s) generated by a new unit of development on the city's transportation system. To the extent that the capital recovery fee per service unit collected is less than the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit (post credit), as calculated and documented in the capital recovery plan, such difference is hereby declared to be founded on policies unrelated to the measurement of the actual impacts of the development on the city's transportation system. The maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit may be used in evaluating any claim by an applicant, developer, or property owner that the dedication, construction, or contribution of a capital improvement imposed as a condition of development approval pursuant to the city's regulations is not roughly proportionate to the impact(s) of the new development on the city's transportation system. Sec. 78 -176. - Assessment of capital recovery fees. (a) Assessment of the capital recovery fee per service unit for any new development shall be made as follows: 1. Assessment of capital recovery fee shall be made at the time of recordation of a final plat and shall be the amount of the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit. 2. Development on a lot for which a final plat has been recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance (larch 27 2018) shall not be charged a capital recovery fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 18 months from the effective date of this ordinance (e ui r,27, 201.9). 3. Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance arh7, 2018) . shall not be charged a capital recovery fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 1 year from the effective date of this ordinance (Mach 271, 201.9). 4. Any other development will be charged a capital recovery fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance (March 27, 2018). (b) Following assessment of the capital recovery fee pursuant to subsection (a), the amount of the capital recovery fee assessed per service unit for that new development cannot be increased, unless the owner proposes to change the approved development by the submission of a new application for final plat approval or replat approval, in which case new assessment shall occur at the maximum assessable, applicable rate then in effect. (c) Following the vacating of any plat or submittal of any replat, a new assessment must be made in accordance with Sec. 78 -1.75. (d) Approval of an amending plat pursuant to Texas Local Government Code § 212.016 and the UDC is not subject to reassessment of a capital recovery fee hereunder provided that the use of the property remains the same. Sec. 78 -177. - Payment and collection of capital recovery fees. (a) For all new developments, capital recovery fees shall be collected at the time of application for and in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The capital recovery fees to be paid and collected are as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $600.00 beginning the effective date of this ordinance (Mch 27, 2018) until the last day of the second year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 2, 2020). 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $800.00 beginning on the first day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (,arch 27, 2020) and continuing until the last day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (Mardi -2, 2021). 3. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $900.00 beginning on the first day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (lurch 7, 202 1) and continuing until the last day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (Mrch2, 2022). 4. The capital recovery fee per service unit for residential use shall be $1000.00 beginning on the first day of the fifth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March ,27, 2022) and continuing until a new rate is adopted. (b) The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use for all roadway service areas shall be as follows: 1. The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use shall be $1.00.00 beginning the effective date of this ordinance (march 2, 2018) until the last day of the third year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 2,, 2021). 2. The capital recovery fee per service unit for non - residential use shall be $175.00 beginning on the first day of the fourth year from the effective date of this ordinance (March 27, 202 1) and continuing until a new rate is adopted. (c) The city reserves the right to enter into an agreement with a developer for a different time and manner of payment of capital recovery fees in which case the agreement shall determine the time and manner of payment. (d) The city shall compute the capital recovery fees to be paid and collected for the new development in the following manner: 1. Determine the number of development units for each land use category in the new development using Table 7 of the capital recovery plan. 2. Multiply the number of development units for each land use category in the new development by the vehicle miles (per development unit) for each such land use category also found in Table 7 of the capital recovery plan to determine the number of service units attributable to the new development. 3. If an offset agreement providing for offsets and credits against capital recovery fees exists, the number of service units attributable to the new development shall be reduced by subtracting available service unit equivalents as provided in Sec. 78 -178. If adequate service unit equivalents for offsets and credits are available in an amount equal to or greater than the number of service units generated (required) by this new development, no fee is paid, but the pool of available service unit equivalents shall be reduced accordingly. 4. The amount of capital recovery fees to be collected shall be determined by multiplying the number of service units for the new development by the applicable capital recovery fee per service unit identified herein and shall be calculated at the time of application for and in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. (e) If the building permit for which a capital recovery fee has been paid has expired, and a new application is thereafter filed, the capital recovery fees shall be computed using the LUVMET and the applicable capital recovery fee per service unit identified herein with credits for previous payment of fees being applied against any new fees due. (f) Whenever the property owner proposes to increase the number of service units for a development, the additional capital recovery fees collected for such new service units shall be determined by using the LUVMET and applicable fee per service unit identified herein, and such additional fees shall be collected at the times prescribed by this section. Sec. 78 -178. - Offsets and credits against capital recovery fees. (a) The city shall offset the reasonable value of any system facility which has been dedicated to and has been accepted by the city on or after the effective date of this ordinance (Ma t* 7, 2018), or offset the amount of any contributions to such facility, against the amount of the roadway capital recovery fees due, in accordance with the rules set forth in this section. The value of an offset must be stated in service units. (b) This subsection applies only to an offset associated with a capital improvement on the capital improvement plan contributed to the city after the effective date of this ordinance (March 7, 2018). 1. For purposes of this subsection (b), an offset associated with a capital improvement on the roadway improvement plan contributed to the city after the effective date of this ordinance 2018) . is created at the time that the city accepts the system facility for dedication or as may be otherwise stipulated in a binding agreement for the facility pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations. 2. At the time the offset is created, if no offset agreement exists, the developer shall apply for an offset agreement, and the agreement thereafter shall be enforced in accordance with the following terms, providing: a. Identification of the plat with which the offset is to be associated; b. The amount of the capacity created by the system facility, expressed in service unit equivalents; c. A provision stating that the offset may be used to reduce capital recovery fees imposed on new developments contained within the land subject to the associated plat after the effective date of the agreement; and d. A provision that the amount of the offset shall be determined by estimating the number of service unit equivalents of capacity supplied by the system facility (as set forth in the capital recovery plan), reduced by: 1. The number of service units developed within the plat since the contribution of the system facility, using the LUVMET; 2. The amount of the city's participation in the excess costs of the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and 3. The amount of any payments received from other new developments utilizing the system facility (expressed in service unit equivalents); and e. A provision for reimbursement of any unused offsets consistent with subsection (b)(4) of this section. f. A provision stating that in those instances where the city determines the unique characteristics of a roadway segment (such as drainage, topography, easements required, absence of roadway segments remaining in service area) and the projected cost to construct a section of roadway is not roughly proportionate to the dollar value of the vehicle mile credits which may be awarded for that roadway section, the city may consider, upon request of the developer, awarding capital recovery fee offsets based upon the developer's verified, actual costs of said roadway section. The developer may assign the offset agreement with the city's consent, but in no event shall the offsets provided for in the agreement be transferred to any development not subject to the plat associated with such offsets. (3) The developer may petition the city council for offsets for contribution of a capital improvement, including road right -of -way, which is not identified in the capital improvements plan, if the improvement will supply capacity to new developments other than to the development seeking the offset, at the time the facility is accepted by the city or a binding facilities agreement for the facility is executed pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations. In no event, however, may offsets attributable to such facility be used to reduce capital recovery fees until the capital improvements plan has been amended to include the capital improvement for which the offset was granted. If the petition is granted, the terms shall be incorporated into an offset agreement as provided in subsection (b)(2) hereof. The agreement shall also provide that the amount of the offset shall not exceed the capacity of the capital improvement that is included in the capital improvements plan. (4) As provided in the offset agreement required by subsection (b)(2), hereof, the developer may apply for reimbursement of excess offsets following either completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated or after ten years following execution of the offset agreement. The following rules apply to such reimbursement, and shall be incorporated into the offset agreement. a. The developer must apply for reimbursement within six months following either: 1. Completion of all development subject to the plat with which the offsets are associated; or 2. Ten years after the date of execution of the offset agreement. b. The following terms shall be incorporated into the reimbursement agreement and the agreement shall be enforced in accordance with such terms: 1. A provision stating that the amount to be reimbursed shall be equal to the number of unused offsets (expressed as a number of service units) multiplied by a fraction equal to the capital recovery fee per service unit to be collected, as set forth herein in effect on the date of execution of the offset agreement, divided by the maximum assessable capital recovery fee per service unit, as set forth herein and in the capital recovery plan in effect on the date of execution of the offset agreement; 2. A provision stating that the amount to be reimbursed may be further equitably reduced, if fewer than 50 percent of the number of service units in the plat with which the system facility giving rise to the offset have been developed on the date of application for reimbursement; 3. A provision stating that repayment shall be made within five years from the date of execution of the reimbursement agreement, from roadway capital recovery fees collected within the same roadway service area in which the property in question is located, subject to the availability of such funds; 4. A provision that termination or reduction of the city's authority under state law to impose capital recovery fees for roadway facilities shall terminate or correspondingly reduce any obligation of the city to make payments under the offset agreement; and 5. A provision stating that, in converting the offsets from service unit equivalents to a dollar value, the number of service unit equivalents shall be multiplied by the value of a service unit expressed in dollars using the rates set forth herein in effect at the time the offset agreement was executed. c. Execution of a reimbursement agreement shall automatically terminate any offsets associated with a plat pursuant to an offset agreement. Thereafter, new development within the area subject to the plat shall pay roadway capital recovery fees in accordance with schedule 1 then in effect. Sec. 78 -179. - Use of proceeds of roadway capital recovery fees. (a) The capital recovery fees collected within each roadway benefit area may be used to finance, pay for or to recoup the costs of any roadway facility identified in the capital improvements plan for the roadway benefit area, including the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), and amounts designated in any reimbursement agreements executed pursuant to this ordinance. (b) Capital recovery fees may be used to pay for the contract services of an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (c) Capital recovery fees also may be used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the city to finance such capital improvement. Sec. 78 -180. - Appeals. (a) The property owner or applicant for a new development may appeal the following administrative decisions to the city council: (1) The applicability of a capital recovery fee to the new development; (2) The amount of the capital recovery fee due; (3) The availability of, the amount of, or the expiration of an offset or a credit; (4) The application of an offset against a capital recovery fee due; (5) The amount of the capital recovery fee in proportion to the benefit received by the new development; or (6) The amount of a refund due, if any. (b) The appellant shall state the basis for the appeal in writing with particularity. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the amount of the fee or the amount of the offset was not calculated according to the rules set forth in this ordinance or by administrative guideline adopted by the city council. The appellant shall submit any traffic study or other documents upon which he relies to the city with the request for appeal. (c) The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city secretary within 30 days following the decision. If the notice of appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety with offices for local presentment in a form satisfactory to the city attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the capital recovery fee due, the development application may be processed while the appeal is pending. (d) The appellant shall promptly pay to the city the full amount of the capital recovery fee determined to be due by the city council regarding such appeal. Failure to promptly pay such capital recovery fee within five business days after the city council's determination on the appeal shall serve as authority for the city to present the bond or other surety to the bonding company or financial institution for performance with no other or further notice or contact with the appellant. Sec. 78 -181. - Refunds. (a) Any capital recovery fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this article which has not been expended within the applicable roadway service area for an authorized purpose within ten years from the date of payment shall be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid or, if the capital recovery fee, was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in § 302.002 of the Texas Finance Code or its successor statute. The application for refund pursuant to this section shall be submitted in writing within 60 days after the expiration of the ten -year period for expenditure of the fee. A capital recovery fee shall be considered expended on a first -in, first -out basis. (b) A capital recovery fee collected pursuant to this article shall be considered expended if the total expenditures for capital improvements authorized in this ordinance within the roadway service area within ten years following the date of payment exceed the total fees collected for such improvements during that time period. (c) If a refund is due pursuant to subsections (a) or (b), the city shall prorate the refund by dividing the difference between the amount of expenditures and the amount of the fees collected by the total number of service units assumed within the roadway service area for the period to determine the refund due per service unit. The refund to the record owner shall be calculated by multiplying the refund due per service unit by the number of service units for the new development for which the fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount. (d) If the building permit for a new development for which a capital recovery fee has been paid has expired and a modified or new application has not been filed within six (6) months of such expiration, the city shall, upon written application, refund the amount of the capital recovery fee to the applicant. The city may establish guidelines for refunding of capital . recovery fees collected for which construction plans have been abandoned. Sec. 78 -182. - Relief procedures. (a) Any person who has paid a capital recovery fee or an owner of land upon which an capital recovery fee has been paid may petition the city council to determine whether any duty required by this article has not been performed within the time so prescribed. The petition shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the unperformed duty and request that the act be performed within 60 days of the request. If the city council determines that the duty is required, pursuant to the ordinance and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days of the date of the request and to continue until completion. (b) The city council may grant a variance or waiver from any requirement of this article, upon written request by a developer or owner of property subject to the ordinance, following a public hearing, and only upon finding that a strict application of such requirement would when regarded as a whole result in confiscation of the property. (c) If the city council grants a variance or waiver to the amount of the capital recovery fee due for a new development under this section, it may cause to be appropriated from other city funds the amount of the reduction in the capital recovery fee to the account, for the roadway benefit area, in which the property is located. Secs.78- 183 -78 -1.89- Reserved. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Prepared for: City of Schertz October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Capital Improvements Plan Elements ............................................................. ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ....................................................................... ..............................4 4.1 Existing Volumes ..................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.2 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity Supply .................................................... ............................... 6 4.3 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand ................................................................... ............................... 6 4.4 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies .................. ............................... 7 5.0 GROWTH PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................... ..............................7 5.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand ....................................................... ..............................9 6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ......................................................................... ..............................9 6.1 Eligible Projects ..................................................................................................... .............................10 6.2 Eligible Costs ........................................................................................................... .............................10 6.3 Impact Fee CIP ........................................................................................................ .............................12 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ .............................17 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate development impact fees. Legislative mandate requires that a capital improvements plan (CIP) be prepared that addresses long -term growth and that such plan be approved by the governing body prior to a public hearing for the consideration of imposing an impact fee. This report details the development of the impact fee CIP. As a funding mechanism for roadway improvements, impact fees allow cities to recover the costs associated with new facilities or expansions in order to serve future development. Legislatively, roadway impact fees may consider arterial and collector status roads on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be based on a specific list of improvements identified in the program and only the cost attributed (and necessitated) by new growth over a ten -year period may be considered. As projects in the program are completed, planned costs are updated with actual costs to more accurately reflect the capital expenditure of the program. Additionally, new capital improvement projects may be added to the program. 1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the capital improvements plan. • Service Area Structure - Explanation and division of the City into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Existing Conditions Analysis — Analysis of the existing roadway system; its carrying capacity, current utilization, and deficiencies. • Growth Projections— Development of growth projections to occur over the ten -year planning period by service area. • Capital Improvements Plan — Description of the capital improvements plan and costing. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY The impact fee capital improvements plan is predicated on community growth forecasted over a ten -year planning period. The Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report, prepared as part of this study process, serves as the basis for the determination of "growth attributable to new development ". The LUA examines growth in terms of population and employment, and are based on recent trends the city has experienced since the early 2000s and reflect the changing dynamics of residential and non - residential growth in the city. Information contained in the report is based upon analysis of data from the U.S. Census, regional and local growth trends, housing permits and known /anticipated development from recent city approvals. These land use assumptions serve as a key component from which impact fees are calculated. For the formulation of the capital improvements plan, a series of work tasks were undertaken and are described below. 1. Meetings were held with City Staff to discuss impact fee methodology, project criteria and eligibility, and cost eligibility for consideration in the study. 2. Roadway service areas were developed to ensure conformity with legislative mandate, as well as amended to allow for city annexations. 3. Vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) in the PM peak hour was identified as the service unit of measure for analyses and impact fee calculations. 4. A roadway inventory was conducted to document lane geometrics, roadway functional classification, and system capacity. Traffic volume count data were collected in May 2015 to determine roadway utilization, and if any capacity deficiencies exist within each impact fee service area. Traffic volume counts were conducted at 30 locations throughout the city. 5. Projected 10 -year growth was calculated for service areas based on land use assumptions (projections of population and employment growth) and translated into residential, office, commercial and industrial VMT using service unit equivalencies. Trip rate data was obtained from Trip Generation, Ninth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and trip length statistics for Schertz were obtained from the travel demand model used in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan Study. 6. A capital improvements plan to address projected growth was developed and separated by service area. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Service areas are required by State Law to define an area to be served by impact fee capital improvements. Legislative requirements stipulate that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum and must be located within the current city limits. The result is that, for roadways, new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area and within city limits. A service area structure consisting of four zones has been developed for Schertz and correlates with the current corporate boundaries, as depicted in Figure 1. An inventory of major roadways that are designated as arterial and /or collector facilities on the Master Thoroughfare Plan was conducted to determine: 1) capacity provided by the existing roadway system, 2) the demand currently placed on the system, and 3) the potential existence of deficiencies on the system. Any deficiencies found to occur will be carried over in the impact fee calculations (netting out capacity made available by the CIP). Data for the inventory was obtained from the Master Thoroughfare Plan, field reconnaissance, and peak hour traffic volume count data. The roadways were divided into segments based on changes in lane configuration, major intersections, city limits or area development that may influence roadway characteristics. For the assessment of individual segments, lane capacities were assigned to each segment based on roadway functional class defined by the Master Thoroughfare Plan and type of existing cross - section, as listed in Table 1. Roadway hourly volume capacities are based on general carrying capacity values and reflect level -of- service (LOS) "D" operation based upon generally accepted capacities as defined in AAMPO planning references, which has been identified as the minimum acceptable traffic operational condition by cities. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 TABLE 1. ROADWAY FACILITY VEHICLE -MILE LANE CAPACITIES Divided Arterial* DA 675 Divided Collector* DC 550 Undivided Arterial UA 625 Undivided Collector UC 500 *Facilities with a two -way left turn lane (TWLTL) treated as a divided facility and marked with a Special Arterial (SA) or Special Collector (SC) designation. 4.1 EXISTING VOLUMES Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts conducted in May 2015. Automated traffic counts at 30 separate locations were collected on major roadways throughout the city. In an effort to minimize the total number of counts, data was collected at locations where traffic volumes would typify link volumes on the major segments within the immediate area. For segments not counted, existing volumes were used or estimates were developed based on data from adjoining roadway counts. This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and entered into the database for use in calculations. A summary of volumes by roadway segment is included in the Appendix A as part of the existing capital improvements database. V 1_ ► ''' " _ An analysis of the total capacity for each service area was performed. For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of capacity supplied were calculated using the following: Vehicle -Miles of Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) A summary of the current capacity available on the roadway system by service area is detailed below. �CIt�I�l. l[ �11IduIIIf�Yllli� ►:1��IY1►�[!l17�luI:�►�17 The level of current usage in terms of vehicle -miles was calculated for each roadway segment. The vehicle- miles of existing demand were calculated by the following equation: Vehicle -Miles of Demand = PM peak hour volume x Length of segment (miles) The total vehicle -miles of demand by service area is also listed below. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 4.4 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of excess capacity and /or deficiencies were calculated and are listed in Table 2. Each direction was evaluated to determine if vehicle demands exceeded the available capacity. If demand exceeded capacity in one or both directions, the deficiency is deducted from the supply associated with the impact fee capital improvement plan. A summary of peak hour excess capacity and deficiencies is also shown in the table. Any deficiencies identified under current operations will be carried over to the impact fee calculation. A detailed listing of existing excess capacity and deficiencies by roadway segment is also located in the Appendix A. TABLE 2. PEAK HOUR VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY, DEMAND, EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES 1 12,708 2,938 10,047 277 2 37,321 20,846 16,690 215 3 15,917 7,479 9,067 629 4 1,478 130 1,348 0 Total 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 5.0 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The projected growth for the roadway service area is represented by the increase in the number of new vehicle -miles of demand generated over the 10 -year planning period. The basis for the calculation of new demand is the population and employment projections that were prepared as part of the Schertz Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report for Impact Fees dated October 2017 by Freese and Nichols with a growth rate approved by the Schertz CIAC on May 13, 2015. Estimates of population and employment were prepared for the years 2017 and 2027. Population data was provided in terms of the number of dwelling units and persons. Employment data was broken into three classes of employees that include basic, retail and service, comprising a variety of employment groupings. Basic employment generally encompasses the industrial and manufacturing uses; retail employment includes commercial and retail uses; and service employment generally encompasses government and office uses. A summary of the projected growth is summarized below. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 7 TABLE 3. PROJECTED 10 -YEAR DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH SUMMARY � l I t� i 4� �I t• i t � t t t M i � at � 1 t Source: FNI; October 2017 Land Use Assumptions Report Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 8 5.1 PROJECTED VEHICLE -MILES OF NEW DEMAND Projected vehicle -miles of demand were calculated based on the net growth expected to occur over the 10 -year planning period, and on the associated service unit generation for each of the population and employment data components (basic, service and retail). Separate calculations were performed for each data component and were then aggregated for each service area. Vehicle -miles of demand for population growth were based on dwelling units (residential). Vehicle -miles of demand for employment were based on the number of employees, and then converted to square footage of building space using estimates of square footage per employee for industrial, office and retail uses. The 10 -year projected vehicle -miles of demand by service area are summarized in Table 4. The Appendix B details the derivation of the projected demand calculations. TABLE 4. 10 -YEAR PROTECTED SERVICE UNITS OF DEMAND 1 10,461 2 17,905 3 14,918 4 124 Total 43,408 6.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating long -term growth in Schertz. The City has identified the City- funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees is made up of: • Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; • Projects currently under construction; and • Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. All arterial and collector facilities in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not to the ultimate build -out were included in the impact fee CIP to provide flexibility in the development of the community due to currently rapid rates of development. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 Subsequent to this report on the development of the impact fee CIP, the final report will detail project cost per service unit, the cost attributable to new development, and service area cost per service unit. 6.1 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Legislative mandate stipulates that the impact fee CIP contain only those roadways which are included on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan that are classified as arterial or collector status facilities. Impact fee legislation also allows for the recoupment of costs for previously constructed facilities and projects currently under construction; however, after consideration, none of the projects were included for recoupment. All of these projects conform to the Master Thoroughfare Plan requirements and will consider only the costs incurred by the City for facility implementation. 6.2 ELIGIBLE COSTS In general, those costs associated with the design, right -of -way acquisition, and construction and financing of all items necessary to implement the roadway projects identified in the capital improvements plan are eligible. These estimates are based on the ultimate roadway section identified by functional classification in the 2017 Master Thoroughfare Plan Report with an excerpt of these assumed sections in the Appendix E. It is important to note that upon completion of the capital improvements identified in the CIP, the city must recalculate the impact fee using the actual costs and make refunds if the actual cost is less than the impact fee paid by greater than 10 percent. To prevent this situation, conservative (low) estimates of project cost are considered. Chapter 395.012 identifies roadway costs eligible for impact fee recovery. The law states that: "An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the cost of constructing capital improvements for facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees; and fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan." The following details the individual cost components of the impact fee CIP. Construction: Construction costs include those costs which are normally associated with construction, including: paving, dirt work (including sub -grade preparation, embankment fill and excavation), clearing and grubbing, retaining walls or other slope protection measures, and general drainage items which are necessary in order to build the roadway and allow the roadway to fulfill its vehicle carrying capability. Individual items may include; bridges, culverts, inlets and storm sewers, junction boxes, manholes, curbs and /or gutters, and channel linings and other erosion protection appurtenances. Other items included in cost estimates may include: sidewalks, traffic control devices at select locations (initial cost only), ancillary adjustments to existing utilities, and minimal sodding /landscaping. Engineering: These are the costs associated with the design and surveying necessary to construct the roadway. Because the law specifically references fees, it has generally been understood that in -house City design and surveying cannot be included. Only those services that are contracted out can be included and it may be necessary to use outside design and surveying firms to perform the work. For planned projects, a percentage based on typical engineering contracts was used to estimate these fees. Right -of -Way: Any land acquisition cost estimated to be necessary to construct a roadway can be included in the cost estimate. For planning purposes, only the additional amount of land needed to bring a roadway right -of -way to thoroughfare standard was considered. For example, if a 120' right -of -way for an arterial road was needed and 80' of right -of -way currently existed, only 40' would be considered in the acquisition cost. The cost for right -of -way may vary based on location of project and will be based on data from the most current County Appraisal District data. Debt Service: Predicted interest charges and finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principle and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by the city to finance capital improvements identified in the impact fee capital improvements plans. They cannot be used to reimburse bond funds for Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 other facilities. This cost will be determined through a Finance Study and incorporated in the final impact fee cost per service unit calculation. Previous Assessments: The cost for any previous assessments collected by the City on projects identified on the impact fee CIP must be removed from program consideration. As this is a new impact fee program, there are no previous assessments to consider in the initial calculation. Study Updates: The fees paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision can be included in the impact fees. Only the cost necessitated by new development will be considered for impact fee consideration. For example, if only 60% of the capacity provided by the impact fee CIP is needed over the ten -year window, then only 60% of the cost associated with those facilities will be considered. This can be seen in Service Area 1 as another example, where net capacity supplied by the CIP is 42,189 vehicle -miles (Table 5) while the projected demand is 10,461 vehicle -miles (Table 4). Therefore, only the portion of cost attributed to the projected demand, 24.8 percent, is considered in the impact fee cost per service unit calculation in the next phase of the study's Impact Fee Report. This calculation is shown for each service area in Table 6. 6.3 IMPACT FEE CIP The proposed CIP consists of 71 project segments over the four service areas and entail the buildout of the full Master Thoroughfare Plan network, as seen in Figure 2. By including the full network, there is flexibility in the impact fee program funds to adapt to development needs and ensure credit is given to developers building thoroughfare roadways. The capacity and net capacity provided by the proposed CIP is summarized below in Table S. Net capacity provided by the proposed CIP takes into consideration current traffic on CIP roads and any deficiencies from the existing conditions analysis described in Section 4 of this report. A detailed listing by project of capacity supplied can be found in the Appendix C. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 12 TABLE 5. CAPACITY AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP 1 45,213 2,747 42,466 277 42,189 2 25,210 6,998 18,212 215 17,996 3 46,511 7,305 39,206 629 38,577 4 3,359 130 3,229 0 3,229 Total 120,292 17,181 103,111 1,121 101,991 A comparison of net capacity provided by the proposed CIP relative to 10 -year needs (developed in Section 5) is listed below in Table 6. An analysis reveals an adequately matched overall impact fee CIP program to address growth attributable to new development. TABLE 6. PROJECTED DEMAND AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP Project costs were developed based on unit cost estimates compiled by Freese and Nichols. Individual project costs were developed for engineering, right -of -way, and construction, as found in the Appendix D. Each roadway segment uses the Master Thoroughfare Plan's defined functional classification to determine the ultimate roadway standard for each link. Additionally, impact fee study update costs were attributed to the project costs. For recently completed projects, actual costs must be input to meet legislative mandates, but no completed projects were included in this initial impact fee program. The cost for the preliminary IFCIP program totals approximately $228.9 million, excluding debt service. Debt service costs will be determined in the Finance Study as part of the cost per service unit calculation analysis. Figure 2 and Table 7 illustrate and list the capital improvement projects and their associated total cost for the impact fee program. Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Sery Area Project No. Roadway From TO Project Status Length (m it No. Of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pot. in Serv. Area Total Project Cost I I FM 2252 IH 35 FM 482 New 0.32 4 DA Principe] Arterial 100% $1,566,800 1 2 FM 2252 DO 482 Railroad Tracks New 0,64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,146,000 IV( 3 FM 2252 Railroad Tracks N City Limits New 0.22 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $509,850 112 4 N/S Connector (1) IH 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,202,650 1 5 E/W Connector (1) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,513,000 1 6 E/W Connector (2) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $4,269,000 1 7 Fly 482 FIN 2252 Hubertus Rd New 1.05 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,456,100 1 8 FM 482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks New 1.00 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,147,800 1 9 FM 482 800' W of Fresenhahn Friesereahn Ln New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $754,100 I/X 10 FM 482 Fresenharin Ln Schwab Rd New 0.59 4 DA Principal Arterial 50% $1,530,000 1 11 FM 482 Schwab Rd E City Limits New 1.20 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $6,205,500 1 12 Hubertus Rd IH 35 FM 482 New 0.57 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,855,700 1 13 Hubertus Rd FM 482 IN City Limits New 0.30 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,572,300 1 14 Fnesenhahn Ln D 35 FM 482 New 0.72 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,343,600 1 15 Schwab Rd 1H 35 FIN 482 New 0.63 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $4,374,700 1 16 E/W Connector (3) Hubertus Rd David Lack Blad New 1.59 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $6,110,000 1 17 Eckhardt Rd Froboese Ln Green Valley Rd New 1.11 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $3,727,100 1 18 Schwab Rd IH 35 S City Limits New 1.14 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,680,700 1 19 Froboese Ln Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0,57 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,030,400 1 20 Froboese Ln 2200'E of Eckhardt E City Limits New 0,26 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $890,000 1 21 Green Valley Rd W City Limits E City Limits New 0.87 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,199,500 1 22 Homestead Pkwy End Ex Homestead Pkwy S City Limits New 0.33 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,178,500 1 23 Country Club Blwl Scenic Links S City Limits New 0.35 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,257,100 1 24 E/W Connector (4) Country Club BlwJ Homestead Pkwy New 0.77 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,671,200 1 25 E/W Connector (4) Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.45 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $1,602,000 1 26 FIN 1103 11135 Old Wiederstain Rd New 0.70 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,000,000 1 27 NIS Connector (1) D 35 Old Wiederstein Rd New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $2,667,000 1 28 NIS Connector (2) IH 35 Old Waderstem Rd New 0.73 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,635,700 1 29 E/W Connector (5) N/S Connector (1) FM 1103 New 2.00 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $7,097,200 I/X 30 Old Guederstein Rd N/S Connector (1) Cherry Of New 2.17 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $5,143,600 Sub-total SA 1 24.22 $97,337,100 2 31 Doerr Ln N City Limits Lookout Rd New 0.91 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $3,249,900 2/1 4 NIS Connector (1) IH 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,130,900 2 32 E/W Connector (2) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,200 2 33 E/W Connector (6) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,100 2 34 Mid-Cities Pkwy D 35 FM 3009 New 0.98 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $3,293,700 2 35 E/W Connector (1) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,190,900 2 36 E/W Connector (7) W City Limits Doerr Ln New 0.65 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,231,100 2 37 Lookout Rd Tri-County Pkwy Schanz Pkwy New 0.74 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,743,600 2 38 Four Oaks Ln End of Ex .Four Oaks Ln NIS Connector (1) New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,977,300 2 39 Wrederstren Rd E City Limits FM 3009 New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,079,800 2 40 Wiederstep Rd Schertz Pkwy IN City Limits New 0.41 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,294,700 2 41 Baptist Health Dr Ripps-Kreusler Wiederstem Rd New 0.27 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $992,900 2 42 Ripps-Kreusler Baptist Health Dr End of Rippe Kreurser New 0.22 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $803,900 2 43 Maske Rd FIN 1518 Oak St New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,827,600 2 44 Masks Rd Realignment Oak St Schertz Pkwy New 0.88 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $3,645,200 2 45 FM 1518/Mad St Maske Rd Oak St New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,494,500 2 46 FM 1518 N City Limits SA 3 Limit New 0.36 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $436,300 2/3 47 FIR 1518 SA 3 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 2 48 FM 78/John Peterson Blvd VY-CIN Imits a-L- -Its E-CA W-W-M New 1.81 6 DA Precool Arterial 100% $2,683,780 Sub-total SA 2 14.34 $47,071,030 Capital Improvements Plan Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 TABLE 7. IMPACT FEE CIP LISTING (CONTINUED) Sew Area Project No. Roadway From To Project Status Length (m f) No. of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pct. in Sew. Area Total Project Cost 3/2 47 FM 1518 SA 2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 3 49 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy Ext. IH 10 New 4.09 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,165,000 3 50 Schaefer Rd W City Limits FM 1518 New 0.48 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $1,536,700 3/X 51 RAF - Bumette Schaefer Rd E City Limits New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $1,279,500 3/X 52 Lower Seguin Rd W City limits E of Tates Dr New 0.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $686,450 3 53 Lower Seguin Rd E of Tates Or W of Canopy Bend New 1.76 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $6,998,900 3 54 Lower Seguin Rd W of Canopy Bend E City Limits New 1.72 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $7,860,400 3 55 N/S Connector (3) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $764,000 3 56 NIS Connector (3) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.27 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,380,400 3 57 NIS Connector (4) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.26 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $894,600 3 58 NIS Connector (4) N City Limits S City Limits New 0.21 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $725,000 3/X 59 W Ware Seguin Rd W City Limits Boeing Dr New 0.57 2 UC Residential Collector 50% $900,550 3 60 W Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Dr NIS Connector (5) New 0.67 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $2,236,900 3 61 NIS Connector (5) Lower Seguin Rd W Ware Seguin Rd New 1.10 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $3,780,500 3 62 N/S Connector (5) W Ware Seguin Rd E Ware Seguin Rd New 0.93 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $3,227,400 3 63 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) Weir Rd IH 10 New 1.66 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $8,020,500 3 64 Trainer Hale Rd (E /W) FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) New 1.51 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $7,710,300 3 65 Ware Seguin Rd Graytown Rd NIS Connector (5) New 135 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,736,300 3 66 E Ware Seguin Rd NIS Connector (5) FM 1518 New 1.41 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,739,900 3/4 67 Graybwn Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $2,000,600 3 68 NIS Connector (6) Ware Seguin Rd lH 10 New 0.47 3 SC Commercial Collector 100% $1,712,600 3 69 E/W Connector 3) IH 10 E City Limits New 2.33 3 SC Commercial Collector 100% $8482300 Sub -total SA 3 23.33 $75,061,450 4/3 67 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr 11110 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% $2,000,600 4 70 Binz - Engleman Rd W City limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% $4,667,000 4 71 Scenic Lake Dr Binz- Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $2.777,400 Sub -total SA 4 3.19 $9,445,000 Totals: 65.08 ( $228,914,580 Totals: Engineering Cost Right -of -Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 ,204,131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost' $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- DiNded arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) ' Cost for (2) 5 year updates UC- Undivided collector `/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two seMce areas Capital Improvements Plan Freese and Nichols, Inc. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 16 APPENDIX Appendix A: Existing Conditions Analysis Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Study Existing Capital Improvements Analysis Total 56.57 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B = Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane '/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divded collector *1* indicates roadway split between two service areas UC- Undivided collector A B C D Ax BxC AxD So, Length No. of Lane Pct. in Peak Hour Volume VMT Supply VIAL Demand Total VMT Total VMT - Area Roadway From To mei) Lanes Type CapacityServ. Area A B Total Pk Hr Total Fir Fir Total Excess Capacity Deficiency '. 1 FM 2252 IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.87 2 UA 625 100% 73 250 323 :1084 -280 `. 804 0`' 1!X FM 2252 Railroad Tracks NCity Limits 0.22 2 UA 625 50% 0 250 250 138 ' 55 83 05 1 FM482 FM 2252 Hubertus Rd 1.05 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 .1315 '. 103 : 1212 0- 1 FM482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks 1,00 2 UA 625 1001 46 52 98 -1252 ' 98 1154 0' 1 FM482 Railroad Tracks Friesenhahn Ln 0.18 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 -222 17 204 0:: 1/X FM482 Friesenhahn Lo ECity Limits 0.59 2 UA 625 50% 46 0 46 -369 - 27 342 0' 1 Hubertus Rd 11135 FM482 0.57 2 UA 625 100% 30 57 87 1708 49 659 0': 1 Friesenhahn Ln IH 35 FM482 0.72 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 717 `: 72 ' 645 0.' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.53 3 S 675 100% 120 315 435 3721 -232 < 489 0: 1 Eckhardt Rd I1135 SCity Limits 1.17 2 UA 625 100% 19 11 30 1466 35 - 1431 0' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 End of Schwab Rd 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 3 2 5 '454 2 452 0' 1 Country Club Blvd IH 35 Northcliffe Golf Club 046 2 DC 550 100% 50 50 100 507 46 461 0( 1 Country Club Blvd Northcliffe Golf Club End of Ex Country Club l 039 2 DC Y 550 100% 50 50 100 .'434 39 395 0 1 FM 1103 IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.70 2 UA 625 100 590 1020 1610 ' 877 `.'1129 25 277 - 1 Belmont Pkwy IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.74 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 >739 'S 30 710 0.. 1/X Old Wiederstein Rd Cibolo Valley Dr Cherry Tree Or 2.17 2 UA 625 50% 0 177 177 .:1356 384 972 0- 1/X Wlederestein Rd IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.56 2 UA 625 50% 607 0 607 -:348 - 338 10 0.. Sub -Total 12.29 12,708 2,938 10,047 277: 2 FM 3009 NCity Limits IH 35 1.62 4 D 675 100% 1010 900 1910 4368 :3090 1278 0- 2 Doerr Ln Bell N Dr Lookout Rd 0.91 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 5:913 >: 91 ? 822 0= 2 Lookout Rd Doerr Lo Schertz Pkwy 0.62 2 UC 500 100% 133 219 352 623 219 404 0:: 2 Four Oaks Ln FM 3009 End of Four Oaks Ln 0.33 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 .328 13 315 0: 21X Schertz Pkwy Lookout Rd N of IH 35 0.51 2 UA 625 50% 50 0 50 <321 26 295 0.. 2 Schertz Pkwy Nof IH 35 IH 35 0.23 2 UA 625 100% 50 50 100 290 'I 23 ' 267 0 ". 2 Schanz Pkwy IH 35 FM78 /John Peterson BI 314 4 DA 675 100% 712 753 1465 '8471 '4596 3875 0.: 2 FM 3009 IH 35 S of Woodland Oaks Or 1.53 5 SA 675 100 869 980 1849 4129 2828 1301 0- 2/X FM 3009 S of Woodland Oaks Dr Live Oak Rd 047 5 SA 675 50% 0 980 980 640 '..: 465 : 175 0- 2 FM 3009 Live Oak Rd FM78 /John Peterson BI 116 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 3124 .2140 985 0- 2 Wiederstein Rd FM 3009 WCity Lim its 145 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 P.1449 ;290 1159 0 2 Savannah Dr Scheriz Pkwy WCity Limits 0.90 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 f905 90 = 814 0': 2 Live Oak Rd Schertz Pkwy FM 3009 0.86 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 ::858 172 686 0P 2 Masks Rd FM 1518 Schanz Pkwy 1.23 2 UC 500 100% 97 105 202 1225 247 978 0': 2 Borgfeld Rd FM 3009 ECity Lim its 043 4 U 500 100% 509 423 932 '859 :400 :. 459 0., 2 FM 1518 /Main St Masks Rd Oak St 1.30 2 UA 625 100% 397 351 748 '1623 971 = 652 0`: 2 FM 1518 /Main St Oak St Aviation Blvd 0.24 4 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 :'600 - 179 420 0: 2 FM 1518/M in St Aviation Blvd FM78 /John Peterson BI 0.29 2 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 '366 219 147 0 2 FM 1518 NCity Lim its SA3 Lim it 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 1452 -457 42 47< 213 FM 1518 SA3 Limit Schanz Pkwy EM, 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 755 0 755 :245 :'296 0 51` 2 Aviation Blvd WCity Limits FM 1518 0.53 2 UA 625 100% 613 438 1051 : 659 554 105 0' 2 FM 78 /John Peterson BI Cibolo Creek Schertz Pkwy 0.67 5 SA 675 100% 1525 1096 2621 1809 ::1756 170 117`. 2 FM78 /John Peterson Bl Schertz Pkwv ECity Limits 1.14 5 S 675 100% 998 520 1518 ':3065 '1723 - 1342 0: Sub -Total 20.31 37;321 20,846 46,690 215? 3/2 FM 1518 SA2 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 0 508 508 245 4199 46 0 3 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy ExL Lower Seguin Rd 1.31 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 :.1638 :1655 153 170 -: 3 FM 1518 Lower Seguin Rd Trainer Hale Rd 1.93 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 2417 <2568 168 319' 3 FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd IH 10 0.85 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 . 1057 '1123 74 139? 3 Schaefer Rd W End of Schaefer E of FM 1518 0.48 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 '478 - 96 383 0`: 31X Schaefer Rd Eof FM 1518 ECity Limits 0.55 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 .!277 :' 55 222 0'. 3/X Schaefer Rd WCity Limits RAF - Burnette 0.14 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 69 '- 14 55 0:! 3/X RAF - Burnett. Schaefer Rd ECity Limits 0.56 2 UC 500 50% 50 0 50 "278 28 : 250 0' 3/X Lower Seguin Rd WCity Limits Eof Tates Or 0.35 2 U 500 50% 304 0 304 '175 ?107 69 0. 3/X Lower Seguin Rd Eof Tates Dr FM 1518 2.27 2 UC 500 50% 304 188 492 2272 71118 - 1154 0:: 3 Lower Seguin Rd FM 1518 ECity Limits 178 2 UC 500 100% 37 16 53 '.1783 94 1688 0'. 3 Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Or E -S Bend in Ware Segu 0.71 2 UA 625 100% 19 20 39 11884 ? 28 857 0. 3 Ware Seguin Rd E -S Bend in Ware Seguin R S -E Bend in Ware Segu 0.92 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 '916 36 : 881 0' 3 Ware Seguin Rd S -E Bend in Ware Seguin R FM 1518 1,41 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 1412 - 55 `: 1357 0- 314 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1,11 2 UA 625 50% 238 0 238 >: 697 265 431 0.' 3 Pfeil Rd Ware Seguin Rd IH 10 1.32 2 UC 500 100 % 22 8 30 ' 1319 S 40 < 1279 0 . Sub -Total 16.08 15,917 7,479 79,067 529 413 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 501 0 89 89 697 99 597 0- 4 Scenic Lake Dr Boeing Dr IH 10 0.78 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 781 ' 31 : 750 0!! Sub -Total 1.90 1,478 130 -1,348 0`; Total 56.57 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B = Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane '/X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divded collector *1* indicates roadway split between two service areas UC- Undivided collector Appendix B: Projected 10 -Year Growth (Vehicle -Miles of New Demand) Vehicle -Mile Trip Generation by Service Area, Schertz Impact Fee Based on September 2017 land Use Assumptions by FNI Fstimated Pe.,ide.wiai nm4h Vehicle -M'le Tdn (' na Linn SerNce Area Added Dwelling Units Vehicle -Miles per DU Total Vehicle -Miles 1 1,061 3.37 3,576 2 1,389 3.37 4,681 3 3,445 3.37 11,610 4 20 3.37 67 Estimated Basic Emulnvment Growth Vhirle -Mile Generation (1.500 SF/emnlnvee) Service Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 694 1,500 1,041,000 170 3,852 2 1,751 1,500 2,626,500 3.70 9,718 3 365 1,500 547,500 170 2,026 4 0 1,500 0 3.70 0 Fstimated .4enrire Fmnlnvmant ('-4h Vahirla -Mile Genaratinn 1500 SF1P.- Invee) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000lSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 595 500 297,500 5.69 1,693 2 419 500 209,500 5.69 1,192 3 106 500 53,000 5.69 302 4 20 500 10,000 5.69 57 Fstimated Retail Fmnlnvmant (gym h Vahicla-Mila Renaratinn 11 non RF /amn1rni ) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 317 1,000 317,000 4.23 1,341 2 547 1,000 547,000 4.23 2,314 3 232 1,000 232,000 4.23 981 4 0 1,000 0 4.23 0 Vehicle -mile Generation Summary SeNlce Area Residential Growth Vehicle -Miles Basic Growth Vehicle -Miles Service Growth Vehicle -Miles Retail Growth Vehicle -Miles -- Total -- Growth Vehicle- Miles' 1 3,576 3,852 1,693 1,341 - -- 10,461 - 2 4,681 9,718 1,192 2,314 17,905- 3 11,610 2,026 302 981 -- .14,918- 4 67 0 57 0 -------- -124 - Totals 19,934 15,596 3,243 4,636 - - - -- 43,408 - SUEquivalency Residential DU 3.37 Basic Employ SF 3.70 Service Employ SF 5.69 Retail Employ SF 4.23 Appendix C: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS Definitions LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial SA = special arterial (arterial with continuous left turn) DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (arterial with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volumes of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY The number of total service units (vehicle - miles) supplied within PK -HR TOTAL the service area, based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by DEMAND PK -HR existing traffic on the roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by PK -HR VEH -MI existing traffic in the afternoon peak hour. CIP VEH -MI The number of service units used by existing traffic in excess of DEFICIENCY the available service units supplied by the roadway in the afternoon peak hour. � o o o 0 0 00 0 0...0 0 00 0 00 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 of o 0 0 00 0 00 0 o a - U r V) 2 NO (9 O O O W W 'O M1 V O' m 0 O 0 O N O O MI F O O O O O O O t«6 N V N r d@ VI N M M O N 0 O O V N M 'M OM I M ' .O � .N W Q . M O O m V N o V . h . O . h m W O O . m 9. F W h NcO N O.N N V h M� W N'h O N MN MM h V.M V W O> N H 'O <p M M O N h M U5 r r S � 2 M M O O O O M M W (O N F O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h 00 O O O O O O O E F-o = m N Q N N M Q d O d c4 ?D f9 t9 iQ 6 0 4 4 0 61 d Q d O O 4 d Q d d O d 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 M O 0 0 o N o a M - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn ¢ Q ¢ w m ¢ ¢ Q ¢ m@ m m o o O o m °° m °° O° m m° m O m O O O m o o o N 5 . m o c c c C a U o U..' .ga9J .o .o N ,o N N N 'C 'C _ d N Lo,. N N N N N A < o o Q o o o o 'C Q Q O ¢ O ¢ O o o Q o o 4 '�' U U U U U U¢ U U .`, U U U I U U U 'a u m a m R a m iu m m is m m m m m m m �t m m o m m m 'm m m m F, m m o m m E sa m m m N C G o C G (} G U U U C C C G is G C C p ❑ a o 0 0 Q1 C C c C c E = E a o 5 a o a a 'oo ._ o o -aa' o 0 o N N N o N N N ° av a"i aoi w a a` a` a` o. a`. a a oai m a"i - a c w ooi E- E E E- E E E cn v> u> zn E E E v> m v ta w m m v u5 v) m w E yr E E E va E E E o ° o a cc o a o v ° o as °J : d d d d d U d d d d Q d d U d U U d U U d U U U U d d d U Q U Q U U U Q U U U o � 2 J M (p N N d) O> O La N c) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a .E .E x .E .E .E .E .E tY m h c c c Ci c f= -o a o o J N o o o U 2 U Y U U U U o s a@ to U o r va F tL fl' z CC LL LL Z fr Li. N W fE_ z 1L LL❑ ii w W W w w w Z W 0 0 0 LL U J CC Z Z iA_ Z❑ u) Z J a a � o m o O � GSi X C aai aai z ii � z J Rs n aai N N O 4 M C O C N N 9 W C J 0 6 4 T w M W N N V��' Ip O o sn v° srs U U cNV v °' z cn v �n v> o a u5 s W `c U U o 0 o a o o M M rn v5 °o c u M M cn a M o° U c cai o u m M M U t/> U M 2 2 M� LL LL z z !.i. Z LL rn ?? S LL � N w vt U uJ ? z z z LL LL Z I.I_ F w O O O O EL o o p o O S O O U CS 'O 'O a -O C C T S] U U Q O 'a, U U tJ U J T N N N C !t! G 41 0 fS U G G M C O C G C r G N tt1 w t(? C o o N N N N N C C A O m .O .> C? a C 3 N N N U U U a. m w �' 3 U 3 0 0 w �' U U ° U U U ;,7,0`. �' i j Ua U U CJ C3 0 0 s s w s o o m o o °a '> `'> 0 0 K I LL. IL z w w IL LL LL L Z Z tL V1 W w u) LL LL 0 Z U W W W z z w O ❑ z W w W W m1 LL .O .° d' u7 CR r a2 O O - .- N m e- N X N X X' o � ,- •- .`- ,- •- •- ,- •- •- .`- •- ,- �- •- ,- ,- •- ,- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- - •- N O ri of o......0 o o o o o o o . o . . o . . o o ....o o o 75 -Ta -cz -c5 �5 -c -c5 -c < 0 0 0 0 a a¢¢ a¢ 0 < Q¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 < < so O. L 2 . Q Q. -p -p 2- E- .2- E E E 0- a`. 0- E E E E E !Y o o cr [2 w CK w Of E E o 0 to a) < < < < < < < oO � M M . O. N N N chD � Iq M 't MI M 3 3 z z z z z z z z z zl z z zo z z z zo z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ZI z z z x -0 LU tis 0 a. I Q. U) T D W, o U) 0 V) U) .1 U) w Cl) w w co co (n U) m z 3� z I za O LU E X t z, z, < C) U) R m 0. 2, oz U<) U) w z z z z 0 z 0 CL N 0 0 0 & o E & mu U) co of vo) V) U) c fn ai c W Q 0 0 C) U) U) co U) w U) U) a5 w Q U) U) m I X x W-1 O Appendix D: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis 8 3 s 2 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 s 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 o g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O q q m 15 15 16 Ill 16 14 4 16 1� - <O 14 4 14 c4 14 li 1: 1� 15 13 ll� 15 �7 Ill 14 -7 a - - - - - - - - - - - w 0 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 °° 8 8 8 8 8 o0 c� �q cD (D n cD q cl� �q n N N oa v� cr� N (q q in v� n "I oO N cR � cl� IQ IQ M �q 13� 1� testa ,4 c\i 4 1 1 - N N - - "i 6 1 D - - - - - o; a -1 e; 2 a a -1 11; 2 71 v; -" ;; -1 -" - - . - - -" -I I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . °O . . . . . . . . . 0 -D q Iq 10 q 1� �D CO q 1� LO q 0? ° N q ml LO P� N 1� ct 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 � o ° o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °F9 0 0 0 � N o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 4 an � di ro 75 a -�a -F� -6 — — — — — - m m m t -ra g- cL 't 't 't, T� 1� oo < —o —o - — — o < < < < < o o o o < < o < < < < < < < < < < -m -F� -Fo -Fo 76 co -F, -�6 7� 'F� -Z6 -�a --�a -za 'ffi le -ffi 16 76 16 �a 21 2- S., .2- 2 2 2 2 �2 o E E 2o ct E clt tt ct c� L �t E ol E E E E E E E U3 u) co u) E o- E E u) u) u) E u) E E E u) E E E o o In u, c� cf c� o o o o o o < < < < < U < < < < < < < U Q U U Q U U Q U U U U < < < U < U < Z I N O o O . . O. . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 c5 6 ('i N l 6 0 6 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 o o 2 2 2 z- Z` z w U) 0 Q U) Lu I Lu U) w m w 0 0 0 z z z 0' 9') z I C c N tab 10 10 N w N LU 'T' U) T 'N �: tit U') 0, Z5 >z m Z5 b Z5 6 6 i2 2 2 2c m o o 0 0 0 Q o 0 o u E ��E 2'R :�R :2 2 if - . I L. 2 z I w Z w w :f :f (D 3: 0 w w z z w 0 ❑ �2 :1 ,2 �2 t2 — .- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O. o o O 8 8 8 .1 1. .1 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. .1 1. 1. 1. OM NO V 1. .1 .1 1 1. V Na 1. yy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .0 �: cl� ll� 0 1� Iq IQ MO clz 00 11 O -i q N N N M N q q 1: M Ffi 14 C6 14 1 vs U -D ID cD 1� Iz c� -D �q 10 cD Iq cli m ll� D c6 q O 14 4 11: ll� ml m �T o F. Lu in m 75 75 75 m Q Q 76 m < �5 �3 'Fo m 75 c, -m 6 �t' m m t z -6 z _ °a < 0 0 0 < o 0 < U0 < 0 0 u Q C) 0 < < < r y < < < io -F m m m m m -M ct Of x m o w 2 2 1 .2- Z t Z3 21, i�l 2� 2� 2 2 o o . . . w w - E E E o E E E o j) CL u) E E o E E E E M it . , D� af of o o o u) of ol lo o o u) w u) to U CJ U7 J) Li < U U U U U < < < < < < U < < < < < < U U U U U U < < < < < U U < K ❑ D u) u) (n ❑ u) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u) u) ❑ ❑ ❑ n n n D > ❑ ❑ (n u) In (o v) u) u) u) -6 Z Ic! 2 . O 4 c5 c5 , — . O. . . . . . . . . . . . I N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 z z z z z z z z z zi o m u) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z( z z zi LU m us in z- z, m o m Lu Lu u) (n co u) o w �22 Lu A Lu w o u) u) u) u) w El it g E m ❑ p E 8� 9 u) 22 15 5 N m o o u) a� co z w z z z z m 1 6 z m, co Fn 15 m k6 x oe ae 2 .2 2 & & .2 .2 Z5 I o -2 1 m o 1 38 U o o o co u) . . . . 0 0 Q 0 c c o Ly � � to u) @ of co w z z z z Lu (D z X x x Ni ml O 4i ig 0 F- Appendix E: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Master Thoroughfare Plan Roadway Sections Freeways, Limited Access The freeway is typically uninterrupted with grade separations at intersections and ramped entries and exits to and from they crossroads as on 1 -35. However, limited access r,• { freeways may also be interrupted for signalized arterial roadway crossings. a a I I , Freeways typically operate at free flow speeds over 55 mph and have two or more lanes in a7a�N�tia{RC? GGWP¢FI4 ¢,iTtI�TCGmti each travel direction. Freeways are typically r� M ff"ao- R bra f*&,*N 'Ptw N1S barrier or median separated, or in the example of the managed lanes under design for 1 -35, can be grade separated from the rest of the corridor where ROW is constrained. The managed lanes element is intended to help maintain a free -flow speed, even during times of peak congestion on adjacent facilities. Freeways, especially controlled access, are typically paralleled by service roads that serve as the interface between the freeway and the adjacent community's arterial and collector street network. Source: Figure 11. 1-35 Managed lanes illustrative - View from Schertz Parkway. Principal Arterials The recommended ROW for principal arterials ranges from 120 to 130 feet. The ROW is intended to accommodate higher volumes and levels of mobility, providing substantial regional access and statewide travel. A ROW of 120 feet allows for four travel lanes and associated spaces. Where six travel lanes are needed, a typical section of 130 feet can be used. Urban principal arterial roadways provide the predominant passageways through the urbanized portions of the community and connect to the regional freeway network, typically providing for curb and gutter drainage. Intersections are provided at all arterial, collector and local roadways and as needed allowing for local land access directly to the facility. Intersections with arterial roadways are typically signalized and provisions made for one or more left turn lanes and occasionally right -turn lanes to facilitate the through movements along the arterial. Principal urban arterial roadways provide at least two travel lanes in each direction plus a center median area for separations of traffic. The median area may be used to provide channelized left -turn lanes, continuous left -turn lanes, and /or streetscape. Where traffic operational Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan analyses support the need for greater throughput capacity, a six -lane section may be considered — as is the case for the ultimate build out of FM 1518 south of FM 78. Access management practices should be employed to minimize the impacts of property access (i.e., driveways) on the principal arterial facility. Sidewalks, five to ten feet in width, should be provided along either sides of the roadway, buffered from travel lanes. A divided median is key for this classification of roadway, and a median width minimum of 16 feet is included. A divided median of sufficient width allows area for dedicated left turn lanes at intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts, and preservation of traffic flow. The median may be raised, or surfaced depending on the adjacent land use. Driveway access onto principal arterials should be limited by access management and spacing requirements, and parking along arterial roadways is generally prohibited. The illustrations below show typical sections for four and six travel lanes with surfaced medians. • High degree of regional mobility, higher traffic volumes and operational speeds • Access is carefully managed • Curb and gutter section with underground stormwater utilities and drainage • Examples include Roy Richard Drive (FM 3009), FM 78, FM 1103, and FM 1518 south of FM 78. Figure 13. Six -Lane Principal Arterial Section Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Arterial The ROW for a secondary arterial in Schertz is 90 feet wide. The arterial is intended to accommodate medium volumes and local mobility, and provide for connections to neighboring communities. Secondary arterial roadways are intended for local trips, so design speeds should also be notably lower than principal arterials. A ROW of 90 feet allows for four travel lanes, and space to buffer different travel modes. A divided median is also important for this classification of roadway, allowing some area for reduced width left turn lanes at minor intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts. Additional ROW may be preferred at major intersections. Driveway access to Secondary Arterials should also be guided by access management and spacing requirements. Parking along secondary arterial roadways is generally prohibited, unless parallel parking bays are provided in addition to travel lanes, which may be desirable in a potential mixed -use transit oriented district north of 1 -35. Bicycle accommodation is intended to be provided on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path), buffered from the roadway. • Cross -Town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and operational speeds • Managed Access • Four -lane divided • Curb and gutter drainage • Examples include Lower Seguin Road east of FM 1518, Wiederstein /Old Wiederstein Road, and the east -west portion of Trainer Hale Road. Figure 1. Secondary Arterial Section — Wederstein Road Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Rural Arterial Rural Secondary Arterial roadways carry traffic across significant segments of the city, connect principal arterials to collectors and accommodate moderate volumes at higher speeds. This section is intended for use where adjacent, planned land uses are lower intensity, and access points fewer than the urban section would provide. The recommended ROW for Secondary Rural Arterials is 90 feet and is intended to include a three -lane section, with two travel lanes and a surfaced median. Travel lanes should be 12 feet wide with 6- to 8- foot -wide shoulders to accommodate emergency parking, extended site lines, and bicycles. Wide areas at the edge of paved shoulders provide for stormwater drainage and buffer from the roadway from adjacent property. Where sidewalks are provided, they should be between the drainage channel and the edge of the ROW. Driveways should still be guided by access management principles. A two -way left - turn lane in the center of the section provides buffer distance from oncoming traffic and left turn opportunities without obstructing the through- movement. An adjacent 20- foot -wide trail easement allows for accommodating pedestrians and bicycles on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path) sufficiently buffered from the travel way, and opportunities for tree growth. • Cross -town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and higher operational speeds • Access is managed • Two -lane divided • Open section drainage Examples include Lower Seguin Road west of Hollering Vine and adjacent to Randolph AFB, and Ware Seguin Road west of FM 1518. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Collector roadways serve to provide access to higher functional class facilities, access to residential areas, and provide access and circulation to commercial areas. They are designed for short trips, lower speeds, and connections between residential and commercial areas. They are differentiated from arterial streets by their length and degree of access to adjacent development where driveway access is seldom limited. The recommended ROW for Collector roadways is 70 feet wide. The pavement width of 40 feet is wide enough to provide different layouts of lane striping to accommodate adjacent uses — whether it is on street parking, or bike lanes, or a center -turn lane, the width is intended to be flexible over time as needs change. Three typical sections are provided: one residential section with on street bike lanes, one commercial section with a middle turn lane for frequent driveways and turn - movements, and one commercial section with on street parking. • Collection and distribution of traffic • Speeds and volumes dependent on adjacent land uses and neighborhoods served • Access to development and neighborhoods • Connectivity to arterial and residential collector streets Typical Residential Collector — 70 -foot ROW: 7 -foot buffered bike lanes accommodate bicycles of all comfort levels. Examples include Ray Corbett Drive, Live Oak Road, Wiederstein Road west of FM 3009, Country Club Boulevard, Eckhardt Road, and segments of Ware Seguin Road. '- •- • • •' Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Typical Commercial Collectors — 70 -foot ROW — applicable in Southern Schertz near 1 -10 and northern Schertz near 1 -35. The 12- foot -wide outside lanes can accommodate more experienced bicycles. A shared - used path on one side accommodates less experienced bicycles. Figure 18. Commercial Collector (TOD) - Example: New Streets in TOD area LOCI Residential and Commercial/industrial Streets The primary function of local streets is to provide access to and from properties. Local streets feed to and from the collector street network, but occasionally may tie directly to arterial streets. The urban local residential street is described in the Schertz Unified Development Code as a 30 -foot pavement width, with curb - and - gutter drainage and minimum 5- foot -wide sidewalks on each side of the street, buffered from the curb. Local residential streets have a 50- foot -wide ROW. Local commercial /industrial streets are described as 42 feet of pavement, with curb and gutter drainage, 5 -foot sidewalks, and a 60- foot -wide ROW. Local streets are not illustrated on the MTP map, but are encouraged to be developed to increase connectivity, lessen block lengths, and encourage active and non -auto modes of travel for people on foot, pedestrians in wheelchairs, and people on bike. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Impact Fee CIP Project Cost Estimates City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,690 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 84,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 203,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 79,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 169,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,950 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 190,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,236,950 Mobilization 5% $ 61,900 Contineencv 10% $ 129,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,428,800 7% $ 100,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 FM 482 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,379 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 158,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 92,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 368,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 2,545,600 127,300 267,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,940,200 7% $ 205,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 3 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 Railroad Tracks to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 58,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 111,600 4 10" Flex Base 7,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 140,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 54,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,650 LF $ 25.00 $ 116,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,970 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 12,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 31,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 19,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 126,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 825,000 Mobilization 5% $ 41,300 Contineencv 10% $ 86,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 953,000 7% $ 66,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 4 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,600 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 66 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 198,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 324,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 4 10" Flex Base 44,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 792,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 44,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 308,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 44,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 44,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 26,400 LF $ 25.00 $ 660,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 550,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 16,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 84,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 179,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 107,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 718,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,822,250 241,200 506,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,569,900 7% $ 389,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 445,500 $ 445,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 5 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial - No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 316,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 649,800 4 10" Flex Base 43,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 774,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 43,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 301,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 43,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 43,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 20,910 LF $ 25.00 $ 522,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 290,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 154,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 92,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 619,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15 ©,000 4,175, 300 208,800 438,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,822,600 7% $ 337,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 352,800 $ 352,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 6 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 206,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 439,200 4 10" Flex Base 27,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 502,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 27,900 SY $ 7.00 $ 195,300 6 TX -5 Geogrid 27,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 27,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,460 LF $ 25.00 $ 261,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 695,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 49,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 124,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 74,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 497,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,232,200 Mobilization 5% $ 161,700 Contineencv 10% $ 339,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,733,300 7% $ 261,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 FM 2252 to Hubertus Rd Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,544 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 56 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 168,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 272,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 4 10" Flex Base 37,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 666,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 37,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 259,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 37,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 37,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 22,180 LF $ 25.00 $ 554,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 9,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 460,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 32,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 163,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 155,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 93,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 622,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,246,550 Mobilization 5% $ 212,400 Contineencv 10% $ 445,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,904,900 7% $ 343,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 207,900 $ 207,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 8 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Hubertus Rd to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,280 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 260,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 28,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 507,600 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 246,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,120 LF $ 25.00 $ 528,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 440,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 31,090 SY $ 5.00 $ 155,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 59,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 148,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 89,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 593,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,005,050 200,300 420,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,626,000 7% $ 323,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 198,000 $ 198,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 9 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 800' West of Friesenhahn Ln. to Friesenhahn Ln. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (►f): 800 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 97,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 37,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,200 LF $ 25.00 $ 80,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,710 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 22,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 90,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 585,750 Mobilization 5% - $ 29,300 Contineencv 10% $ 61,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 676,700 7% $ 47,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 10 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Friesenhahn Ln. to Schwab Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,115 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 32 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 96,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 154,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 300,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 145,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,470 LF $ 25.00 $ 311,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 18,350 SY $ 5.00 $ 91,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 87,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 351,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100;000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,381,500 Mobilization 5% $ 119,100 Contineencv 10% $ 250,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,750,700 7% $ 192,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 116,800 $ 116,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Schwab Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,336 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 64 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 192,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 310,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 33,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 608,400 4 10" Flex Base 42,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 761,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 42,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 296,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 42,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 42,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 25,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 633,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 530,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 37,310 SY $ 5.00 $ 186,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 178,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 106,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 712,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,828,900 Mobilization 5% $ 241,500 Contineencv 10% $ 507,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,577,500 7% $ 390,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 237,600 $ 237,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 12 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 289,800 4 10" Flex Base 20,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 361,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,040 LF $ 25.00 $ 301,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 250,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 17,720 SY $ 5.00 $ 88,600 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 33,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 84,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 50,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 338,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,201,000 Mobilization 5% $ 110,100 Contineencv 10% $ 231,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,542,300 7% $ 178,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 135,400 $ 135,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 13 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD FM 482 to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,584 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 16 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 8,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 153,000 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 74,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,340 LF $ 25.00 $ 158,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 46,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 44,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 26,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 178,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,156,750 Mobilization 5% $ 57,900 Contineencv 10% $ 121,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,336,200 7% $ 93,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 142,600 $ 142,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 14 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FRIESENHAHN LANE IH -35 to FM 482 Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 1,690 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 62,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 129,600 4 10" Flex Base 8,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 149,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 58,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 84,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,820 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 34,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 139,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000' 1,056,300 52,900 111,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,220,200 7% $ 85,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 15 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 3,326 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 200 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 - - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 218,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 25,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 453,600 4 10" Flex Base 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 29,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 207,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 29,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 29,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,310 LF $ 25.00 $ 332,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 41,760 SY $ 5.00 $ 208,800 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 47,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 118,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 70,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 472,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other At -grade RR crossing - - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,317,750 Mobilization 5% $ 165,900 Contineencv 10% $ 348,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,832,100 7% $ 268,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 16 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E/W CONNECTOR (3) Hubertus Rd. to David Lack Blvd. Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 8,395 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 84 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 252,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 302,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 639,000 4 10" Flex Base 41,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 739,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 287,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 41,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 16,800 LF $ 25.00 $ 420,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 700,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,990 SY $ 5.00 $ 69,950 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 69,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 172,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 103,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 690,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,587,250 Mobilization 5% $ 229,400 Contineencv 10% $ 481,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,298,400 7% $ 370,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 440,700 $ 440,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 17 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate ECKHARDT ROAD Froboese Ln. to Green Valley Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 212,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 446,400 4 10" Flex Base 28,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 516,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 200,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 293,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,020 SY $ 5.00 $ 65,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 45,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 113,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 68,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 453,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,944,550 Mobilization 5% $ 147,300 Contineencv 10% $ 309,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,401,100 7% $ 238,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 87,900 $ 87,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 18 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial =_ No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,019 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 61 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 183,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 296,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 32,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 579,600 4 10" Flex Base 40,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 723,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 40,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 281,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 40,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 40,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 602,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 500,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 15,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 76,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 65,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 164,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 98,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 656,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,267,700 Mobilization 5% - $ 213,400 Contineencv 10% $ 448,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,929,300 7% $ 345,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 406,300 $ 406,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 19 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 103,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 23,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 58,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 35,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 233,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,514,950 Mobilization 5% $ 75,800 Contineencv 10% $ 159,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,749,900 7% $ 122,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 158,000 $ 158,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 20 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE E/W Break Pt. 1 to E/W Break Pt. 2 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,380 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 106,200 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 47,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 69,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,070 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 26,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 16,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 106,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 694,850 Mobilization 5% $ 34,800 Contineencv 10% $ 73,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 802,700 7% $ 56,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 31,100 $ 31,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 21 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GREEN VALLEY ROAD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 4,594 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 46 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 138,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 226,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 441,000 4 10" Flex Base 30,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 552,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 30,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 214,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 30,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 30,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 18,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 459,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 385,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,740 SY $ 5.00 $ 58,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 50,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 125,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 75,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 501,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,258,500 Mobilization 5% $ 163,000 Contineencv 10% $ 342,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,763,700 7% $ 263,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 172,300 $ 172,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 22 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HOMESTEAD PARKWAY Existing Homestead Pkwy. to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,742 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 18 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 54,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,200 Cy $ 20.00 $ 64,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 133,200 4 10" Flex Base 8,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 154,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 60,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,490 LF $ 25.00 $ 87,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 19,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 13,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 33,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 20,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 135,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 879,500 Mobilization 5% $ 44,000 Contineencv 10% $ 92,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,015,900 7% $ 71,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 91,500 $ 91,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 23 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD Scenic Links to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 68,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 142,200 4 10" Flex Base 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 63,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 105,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,110 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 36,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 144,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 938,550 Mobilization 5% $ 47,000 Contineencv 10% $ 98,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,084,200 7% $ 75,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 97,000 $ 97,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 24 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Country Club Blvd. to Homestead Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,073 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,150 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 225,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,988,250 Mobilization 5% $ 99,500 Contineencv 10% $ 208,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,296,600 7% $ 160,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 213,800 $ 213,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 25 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,376 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 24 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 72,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 86,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 181,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 210,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 81,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 119,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 46,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 27,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 183,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,195,300 Mobilization 5% $ 59,800 Contineencv 10% $ 125,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,380,700 7% $ 96,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 124,700 $ 124,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 26 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1103 IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,696 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard funded through City Go Bonds, TxDOT, and AAMPO. City contribution anticipated at $2,000,000 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Construction City contribution - - - $ 2,000,000 Engineering /Survey /Testing 7% $ - Right -of -Way Acquisition Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ - $ - 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 27 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 135,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 79,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 47,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 316,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,158,000 Mobilization 5% $ 107,900 Contineencv 10% $ 226,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,492,500 7% $ 174,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 28 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: N/S CONNECTOR (2) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,854 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadwa Shared -Use Path bicycle facil hfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 39 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 117,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 190,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 370,800 4 10" Flex Base 25,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 462,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 179,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 15,420 LF $ 25.00 $ 385,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 320,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,850 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 42,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 105,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 63,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 420,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,731,250 Mobilization 5% $ 136,600 Contineencv 10% $ 286,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,154,700 7% $ 220,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 260,200 $ 260,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 29 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (5) N/S Connector (1) to FM 1103 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 10,552 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 106 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 318,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 380,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 44,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 802,800 4 10" Flex Base 51,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 928,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 361,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 51,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 527,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 585,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,450 SY $ 5.00 $ 117,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 81,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 203,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 122,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 814,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 5,294,300 Mobilization 5% $ 264,800 Contineencv 10% $ 556,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,115,100 7% $ 428,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 554,000 $ 554,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 30 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate OLD WIEDERSTEIN ROAD N/S Connector (1) to Cherry Tree Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 11,458 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 115 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 345,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 28,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 562,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 61,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,101,600 4 10" Flex Base 76,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,375,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 76,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 534,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 76,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 76,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 45,840 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,146,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 19,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 955,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 29,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 146,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 124,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 312,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 187,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,248,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 8,115,300 Mobilization 5% $ 405,800 Contineencv 10% $ 852,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 9,373,300 7% $ 656,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 257,800 $ 257,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 31 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate DOERR LANE N. City Limits to Lookout Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,805 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 49 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 147,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 174,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 365,400 4 10" Flex Base 23,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 423,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 23,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 94,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 23,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 23,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 240,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 400,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,010 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 38,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 95,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 57,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 381,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15©,000 2,629,600 131,500 276,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,037,300 7% $ 212,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 32 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ ? $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 128,000 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,900 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 33 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (6) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 127,900 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,800 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 34 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MID - CITIES PARKWAY IH -35 to FM 3009 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,174 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 - - - - - Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 52 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 156,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 186,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 21,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 394,200 4 10" Flex Base 25,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 455,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 101,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 258,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 430,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,620 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 41,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 102,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 61,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 410,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,664,950 Mobilization 5% $ 133,300 Contineencv 10% $ 279,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,078,200 7% $ 215,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 35 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 258,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 531,000 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 140,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 17,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 427,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 48,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 121,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 72,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 485,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,157,400 Mobilization 5% $ 157,900 Contineencv 10% $ 331,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,646,900 7% $ 255,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 288,700 $ 288,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 36 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (7) W. City Limits to Doerr Ln. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,432 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 35 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 105,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 261,000 4 10" Flex Base 16,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 302,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,870 LF $ 25.00 $ 171,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 190,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 38,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 25,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 63,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 38,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 255,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,659,400 Mobilization 5% $ 83,000 Contineencv 10% $ 174,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,916,700 7% $ 134,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 180,200 $ 180,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 37 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOOKOUT ROAD Tri- County Pkwy. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,907 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 40 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 120,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 297,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 345,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 76,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,820 LF $ 25.00 $ 195,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,510 SY $ 5.00 $ 32,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 77,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 46,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 310,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,219,950 Mobilization 5% - $ 111,000 Contineencv 10% $ 233,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,564,100 7% $ 179,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 38 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FOUR OAKS LANE Existing Four Oaks Ln. to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 2,851 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane J 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 149,700 $ 149,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 39 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E. City Limits to FM 3009 Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,379 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 90,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 88,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 53,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 355,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,307,400 Mobilization 5% $ 115,400 Contineencv 10% $ 242,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,665,100 7% $ 186,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 228,100 $ 228,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 40 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WIEDERSTEIN ROAD W. City Limits to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,165 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 22 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 66,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 165,600 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 42,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 108,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,810 SY $ 5.00 $ 24,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 16,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 40,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 24,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 161,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,047,600 Mobilization 5% $ 52,400 Contineencv 10% $ 110,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,210,000 7% $ 84,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 41 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate BAPTIST HEALTH DRIVE Ripps - Kreusler to Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 52,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 109,800 4 10" Flex Base 7,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 126,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 28,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,860 LF $ 25.00 $ 71,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 11,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 11,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 28,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 17,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 114,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 742,800 Mobilization 5% $ 37,200 Contineencv 10% $ 78,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 858,000 7% $ 60,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 74,800 $ 74,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 42 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RIPPS- KREUSLER Baptist Health Dr. to End of Alignment Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 42,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 90,000 4 10" Flex Base 5,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 102,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 58,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 1,940 SY $ 5.00 $ 9,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 23,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 92,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 600,950 Mobilization 5% $ 30,100 Contineencv 10% $ 63,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 694,300 7% $ 48,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 43 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD FM 1518 to Oak St. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,851 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 44 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD Oak St. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,646 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 47 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 141,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 19,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 354,600 4 10" Flex Base 22,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 410,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,300 LF $ 25.00 $ 232,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 51,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 34,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 86,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 346,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Major Crossing $ 500,000 $ 500,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,752,050 Mobilization 5% $ 137,700 Contineencv 10% $ 289,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,178,800 7% $ 222,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 243,900 $ 243,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 45 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FM 1518 Maske Rd. to Oak St. Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 3 -_ 6.864 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard; special section Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 207,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 248,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 522,000 4 10" Flex Base 33,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 604,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 33,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 134,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 33,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 33,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 343,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,440 SY $ 5.00 $ 57,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 54,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 136,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 81,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 544,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,636,650 Mobilization 5% $ 181,900 Contineencv 10% $ 381,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,200,500 7% $ 294,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 46 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 N. City Limits to Service Area 3 Limit Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 1,901 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 20 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 259,200 4 10" Flex Base 16,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 304,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 190,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 160,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,080 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 24,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 61,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 36,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 245,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 = $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,696,050 Mobilization 5% $ 84,900 Contineencv 10% $ 178,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 391,800 7% $ 27,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 17,100 $ 17,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 47 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Service Area 3 Limit to Schertz Pkwy. Extension Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 2,059 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 21 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 63,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 136,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 280,800 4 10" Flex Base 18,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 331,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 18,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 73,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 18,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 18,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,240 LF $ 25.00 $ 206,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 170,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,840 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 66,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 265,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,726,900 Mobilization 5% $ 86,400 Contineencv 10% $ 181,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 398,900 7% $ 27,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 48 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 78 /JOHN PETERSON BOULEVARD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 9,557 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 96 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 288,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 31,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 624,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 72,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,301,400 4 10" Flex Base 85,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,530,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 85,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 340,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 85,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 85,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 38,230 LF $ 25.00 $ 955,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 795,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 35,040 SY $ 5.00 $ 175,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 121,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 304,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 182,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,218,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures 1/2 Bridge on Either End $ 2,835,000 $ 2,835,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 10,857,850 Mobilization 5% = $ 542,900 Contineencv 10% = $ 1,140,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 2,508,180 7% $ 175,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 49 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy. Extension to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 21,595 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 216 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 648,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 70,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 1,408,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 163,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 2,937,600 4 10" Flex Base 192,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 3,456,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 192,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 768,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 192,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 192,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 86,390 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,159,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 36,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,800,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 103,180 SY $ 5.00 $ 515,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 277,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 694,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 416,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 2,777,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,890,000 $ 1,890,000 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 20,241,050 Mobilization 5% $ 1,012,100 Contineencv 10% $ 2,125,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 4,675,700 7% $ 327,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 50 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHAEFER ROAD W. City Limits to FM 1518 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,534 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 26 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 78,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 92,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 194,400 4 10" Flex Base 12,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 223,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 49,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,070 LF $ 25.00 $ 126,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 28,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 188,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,228,000 Mobilization 5% $ 61,400 Contineencv 10% $ 129,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,418,400 7% $ 99,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 51 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RAF- BURNETTE Schaefer Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 77,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,982,400 Mobilization 5% $ 99,200 Contineencv 10% $ 208,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,289,800 7% $ 160,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 108,900 $ 108,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 52 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to E. of Tates Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 82,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 178,200 4 10" Flex Base 11,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 199,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 44,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 155,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 25,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 42,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 25,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 169,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,099,550 Mobilization 5% $ 55,000 Contineencv 10% $ 115,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,270,100 7% $ 88,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 13,900 $ 13,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 53 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD E. of Tates Dr. to W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 9,293 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 93 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 20,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 49,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 51,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 33,040 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 279,000 410,000 892,800 930,600 206,800 51,700 515,000 165,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 69,100 5% $ 172,600 3% $ 103,600 20% $ 690,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,120,000 $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 1,120,000 1,120,000 5,606,700 280,400 588,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,475,900 7% $ 453,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 69,700 $ 69,700 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 54 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 9,082 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 91 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 273,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 446,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 48,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 873,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,090,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 242,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 36,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 908,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 755,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,210 SY $ 5.00 $ 116,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,400 11 Traffic Control 5% = $ 238,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 143,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 953,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,194,900 Mobilization 5% $ 309,800 Contineencv 10% $ 650,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,155,200 7% $ 500,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 204,300 $ 204,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 55 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 792 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 95,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 21,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,170 LF $ 25.00 $ 79,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,660 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 21,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% _ $ 86,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 560,350 Mobilization 5% $ 28,100 Contineencv 10% $ 58,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 647,400 7% $ 45,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 71,300 $ 71,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 56 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 70,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 138,600 4 10" Flex Base 9,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 172,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 38,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,400 SY $ 5.00 $ 42,000 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 15,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 39,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 23,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 155,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,013,050 Mobilization 5% $ 50,700 Contineencv 10% $ 106,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,170,200 7% $ 81,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 128,300 $ 128,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 57 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector - No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,373 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 104,400 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 27,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,750 LF $ 25.00 $ 68,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 25,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 15,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 102,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 665,500 Mobilization 5% $ 33,300 Contineencv 10% $ 69,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 768,700 7% $ 53,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 72,100 $ 72,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 58 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,109 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 84,600 4 10" Flex Base 5,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 99,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,220 LF $ 25.00 $ 55,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 60,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,460 SY $ 5.00 $ 12,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 20,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 12,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 83,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 539,500 Mobilization 5% $ 27,000 Contineencv 10% $ 56,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 623,200 7% $ 43,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 58,200 $ 58,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 59 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to Boeing Dr. Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 3,010 70 None 1 38 Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 59,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 33,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 224,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,457,250 Mobilization 5% $ 72,900 Contineencv 10% $ 153,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,683,300 7% $ 117,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 60 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD Boeing Dr. to N/S Connector (5) Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,538 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 36 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 108,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 128,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 270,000 4 10" Flex Base 17,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 311,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 17,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 69,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 17,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 17,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 177,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 195,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,860 SY $ 5.00 $ 39,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 65,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 263,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,810,000 Mobilization 5% $ 90,500 Contineencv 10% $ 190,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,090,600 7% $ 146,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 61 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) Lower Seguin Rd. to W. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,808 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 210,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 442,800 4 10" Flex Base 28,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 511,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 113,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 12,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 64,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 43,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 108,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 64,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 432,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,812,150 Mobilization 5% $ 140,700 Contineencv 10% $ 295,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,248,200 7% $ 227,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 304,900 $ 304,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 62 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) W. Ware Seguin Rd. to E. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,910 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 50 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 150,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 178,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 4 10" Flex Base 24,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 433,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 24,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 96,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 24,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 24,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,830 LF $ 25.00 $ 245,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 54,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 91,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 366,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,581,700 Mobilization 5% = $ 129,100 Contineencv 10% $ 271,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,981,900 7% $ 208,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 36,800 $ 36,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 63 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (N /S) Weir Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 8,765 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 88 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 264,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 430,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 46,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 842,400 4 10" Flex Base 58,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,053,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 58,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 234,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 58,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 58,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 35,060 LF $ 25.00 $ 876,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 730,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 51,610 SY $ 5.00 $ 258,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 237,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 142,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 949,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,170,550 Mobilization 5% $ 308,600 Contineencv 10% $ 648,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,127,200 7% $ 498,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 394,400 $ 394,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 64 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (E /W) FM 1518 to Trainer Hale Rd. (N /S) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 7,973 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 - - - Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 80 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 240,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 390,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 42,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 766,800 4 10" Flex Base 53,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 957,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 53,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 212,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 53,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 53,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 31,900 LF $ 25.00 $ 797,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 665,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,370 SY $ 5.00 $ 101,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 83,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 209,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 125,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 837,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 750,000 $ 750,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,190,350 Mobilization 5% $ 309,600 Contineencv 10% $ 650,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,150,000 7% $ 500,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 59,800 $ 59,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 65 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WARE SEGUIN ROAD Graytown Rd. to N/S Connector (5) Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,128 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 72 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 38,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 39,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 39,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 39,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 25,340 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 216,000 314,000 685,800 712,800 158,400 39,600 395,000 126,700 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 53,000 5% $ 132,500 3% $ 79,500 20% $ 529,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,443,000 Mobilization 5% $ 172,200 Contineencv 10% $ 361,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,976,800 7% $ 278,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 481,100 $ 481,100 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 66 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: EAST WARE SEGUIN ROAD N/S Connector (5) to FM 1518 Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,445 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit 14 Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 75 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 39,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 41,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 26,470 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 225,000 328,000 716,400 745,200 165,600 41,400 415,000 132,350 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 55,400 5% $ 138,500 3% $ 83,100 20% $ 553,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 100,000 100,000 3,699,750 185,000 388,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,273,300 7% $ 299,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 167,500 $ 167,500 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 67 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GRAYTOWN ROAD Boeing Dr. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 31,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 32,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 32,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 32,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,840 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 177,000 258,000 563,400 586,800 130,400 32,600 325,000 104,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% - $ 43,600 5% $ 108,900 3% $ 65,400 20% $ 435,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings $ 300,000 - $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 300,000 300,000 3,130,800 156,600 328,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,616,200 7% $ 253,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 131,900 $ 131,900 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 68 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (6) Ware Seguin Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,482 - - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 25 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 75,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 90,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 189,000 4 10" Flex Base 12,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 219,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 48,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,970 LF $ 25.00 $ 124,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 205,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,140 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 49,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 29,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 197,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,280,150 Mobilization 5% $ 64,100 Contineencv 10% $ 134,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,478,800 7% $ 103,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 130,300 $ 130,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 69 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (8) IH 10 to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 12,302 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 124 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 372,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 442,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 52,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 936,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,083,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 240,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 615,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 20,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,025,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,500 SY $ 5.00 $ 102,500 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 97,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 243,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 146,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 975,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,340,750 Mobilization 5% $ 317,100 Contineencv 10% $ 665,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,323,700 7% $ 512,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 645,900 $ 645,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 70 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: BINZ- ENGLEMAN ROAD W. City Limits to Graytown Rd. Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 6,864 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 18,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 38,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 38,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 38,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 24,410 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 207,000 368,000 660,600 687,600 152,800 38,200 380,000 122,050 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 52,400 5% $ 130,900 3% $ 78,500 20% $ 523,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - - - $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,401,350 Mobilization 5% - $ 170,100 Contineencv 10% $ 357,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,928,700 7% $ 275,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 463,300 $ 463,300 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 71 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCENIC LAKE DRIVE Binz - Engleman Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,066 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 146,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 19,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 358,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 79,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,140 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 340,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,780 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 32,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 80,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 48,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 322,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & 111 Construction Subtotal: $ 2,198,000 Mobilization 5% $ 109,900 Contineencv 10% $ 230,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,538,700 7% $ 177,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2017 SCHERTZ R • ji j •..�. r r r f M•)� FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-2144 Prepared FREESE AND i Dallas, Texas 75204 • - ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ..............................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ ............................... 3 2.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Base Year Data .......................................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1.1 Growth Summary .......................................................................................... ............................... 6 3.1.2 2017 Population ............................................................................................. ..............................6 3.1.3 2017 Employment ......................................................................................... ..............................6 3.2 Ten -Year Projection ............................................................................................... ..............................7 3.2.1 2027 Population ............................................................................................. ..............................7 3.2.2 2027 Employment ......................................................................................... ..............................8 3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 4.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE UNITS ........................................................ .............................10 4.1 Service Units ............................................................................................................ .............................10 4.1.1 Service Unit Supply ...................................................................................... .............................11 4.1.2 Service Unit Demand ................................................................................... .............................11 4.2 Service Units for New Development .............................................................. .............................11 4.2.1 Trip Generation .............................................................................................. .............................11 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ..................................................................... .............................18 5.1 Existing Volumes ................................................................................................... .............................18 5.2 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity Supply ................................................... .............................19 5.3 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand .................................................................. .............................19 5.4 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies ................. .............................19 6.0 PROJECTED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................. ............................... 20 6.1 Projected Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 20 6.1.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand ............................................. .............................20 6.2 CApital Improvements Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 21 6.2.1 Eligible Projects ............................................................................................. .............................21 6.2.2 Eligible Costs ................................................................................................... .............................22 6.2.3 Impact Fee CIP ................................................................................................ .............................24 6.2.4 Projected Vehicle -Miles Capacity Available for New Growth ...... .............................28 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. 6.3.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements ------------------------------39 7.0 CALCULATION ()F IMPACT FEES ..................................................................................................... 30 7.1 Cost per Service Unit ......................................................................................................................... 3O 7.1.1 Cost Attributable 10 New Development -------------------------.3A 7.1.3 Maximum Cost per Service Unit Calculation ................................................................... 31 7.2 Calculation of Roadway Impact Fees .......................................................................................... 32 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A: Roadway Impact Fee Definitions Appendix B: Existing Conditions Analysis Appendix C: Projected lV-Ye8rGrowth Appendix D: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan Appendix E: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis Appendix F: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Appendix G: Land Use Assumptions Report Appendix H: Roadway Service Area Analysis Summary Appendix l: Debt Service and Credit Analysis City of Sch ertz,rexas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shrinking funds available for city infrastructure improvements have prohibited many cities from upgrading infrastructure to meet increasing demands resulting from new growth. To alleviate this issue, many cities collect "impact fees" from new development to help fund roadway improvements necessitated by such development. These fees provide an objective method for new developments to pay their fair share for impact to the city's infrastructure. The one -time, up -front charges provide a predictable cost for new development rather than "negotiated" developer exactions. As codified in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Codes, two rational nexus tests must be demonstrated in order to legally support impact fee programs. First, a reasonable connection between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in demand generated by the new development must be defined. Second, a reasonable connection between the expenditure of the funds collected and the benefits to the new development must be shown. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology used in the development and calculation of roadway impact fees for the City of Schertz. The methodology used herein satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 for the establishment of impact fees. Service Areas Four (4) roadway service areas were created within Schertz current city limits. Annexation in the ETJ was considered in the development of the zonal structure so that as service areas expand in the future, they still conform to legislative mandates in Chapter 395 so that no point is greater than a six -mile maximum to a zone boundary. This six -mile limit ensures that roadway improvements are in close proximity to the development paying the fees that it serves. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page i Service Units Vehicle -miles of travel in the PM peak hour was determined to be the most effective service unit for calculating and assessing impact fees. Vehicle -miles establish a relationship between the intensity of land development and the demand on the roadway system through the use of published trip generation data and average trip length. The PM peak hour is used as the time period for assessment because typically the greatest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour. Additionally, roadways are sized to meet this demand and roadway capacity can more accurately be defined on an hourly basis. The service units (vehicle - miles) for new development are a function of trip generation and the average trip length characteristics for specific land uses based on the best available data. The result of combining trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency table that establishes a service unit rate for various land uses. Existing Conditions An analysis of the existing roadway system revealed that the current roadway system provides 67,424 vehicle -miles of capacity. Existing demands placed on the system was determined to be 31,393 vehicle - miles. Evaluation of the existing roadway system found 1,121 vehicle -miles of deficiencies on the current roadway network (roadway segments at or above their capacity) with all deficiencies located on roadways identified in the CIP. Projected Growth Projected growth, expressed in terms of vehicle -miles over a 10 -year planning period, was based on population and employment data that was prepared in the Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees (2017- 2027). Based on this growth, the projected vehicle -miles of demand generated in the 10 -year period was calculated to be 43,408 vehicle - miles. Capital Improvements Plan All arterial and collector class facilities identified in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not built to the ultimate standard were included in the impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP). The purpose for this is to enable consideration of credits for any arterial or collector class facility built by development within the rapidly growing community. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. All projects identified are new projects, but recoupment projects are also eligible in future updates to the program. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page ii Seventy -one (71) projects comprise the Impact Fee CIP (IFCIP) totaling $229.0 million, providing 103,112 vehicle -miles of new net capacity, were identified for impact fee consideration of which $80.4 million is attributable to new development over the 10 -year planning period. A credit analysis conducted determined the debt service cost attributable to new growth at $9.6 million for a total cost of $90.0 million attributable to new development in the 10 -year period. Cost per Service Unit Calculation The base cost per service unit was calculated based on the total cost attributable to new development and the projected 10 -year demand. State legislation requires that a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period, or a credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of implementing a roadway impact fee capital improvements program be given. Based on the credit analysis, the maximum allowable cost per service unit was calculated using the total cost of the impact fee program, less the credit. The determination of fees due from new development is based upon the size of development, its associated service unit generation (equivalency table) and the cost per service unit derived or adopted for each service area. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION Shrinking funds available for roadway improvements on city thoroughfares have prohibited many cities from upgrading infrastructure to meet increasing travel demands resulting from new growth. To alleviate this issue, many cities collect "impact fees" from new development to help fund roadway improvements necessitated by such development. What is unique and perhaps controversial about impact fees is that they often finance roadway improvements that are outside the development itself. However, when considering traffic implications created from a system standpoint, impact fees provide a means by which infrastructure may keep pace with such development. Texas initially authorized the use of impact fees with the passage of Senate Bill 336 during the 1987 legislature. Now codified in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Codes, the legislation authorizes cities to collect fees from new developments to finance new construction or expansion of capital improvements such as water treatment and distribution facilities, storm and wastewater facilities, and roadway facilities. The law stipulates that all fees collected from new development must not exceed the maximum amount calculated by the methodology described therein. The law also mandates that impact fee systems be updated periodically to ensure that the appropriate cost per service unit is established. As new roadway improvements are completed, actual costs are inserted into the cost per service unit calculation to reflect a more accurate reading of service area costs as opposed to estimated costs that were established at the onset of the impact fee system. Additionally, new capital improvement projects can be added to the system. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 1 In September 2001, Chapter 395 was amended, which called for several technical and administrative changes including the following: • Expansion of the permissible service area structure for roadway facilities from three to six miles; • A credit for the portion of ad valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period, or the credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan; • A city's share of costs on the federal or Texas highway system, including matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation, the establishment of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way; • Increase in the time period of update of impact fee land use assumptions and capital improvements plan from a three to five -year period; • Changes in compliance requirements as they relate to annual reporting; and • Consolidation of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan hearings as well as a single public hearing for system updates. The implementation of a roadway impact fee system complying with Chapter 395 offers several benefits including: 1. A systematic, structured approach to assessment of fees; 2. A clear, equitable distribution of costs associated with the impact of new development; 3. The ability to pool funds for project initiation within a service area; 4. Assurance that fees collected will be spent in the area where new development is occurring; 5. Up -front knowledge of fees to be imposed; 6. Credits for developer participation; and 7. Ability for developers to demonstrate that, pursuant to city guidelines, specific unit equivalencies may be different from those presented in the land use equivalency table. Recognizing the need to provide safe and adequate facilities and desiring to have equitable funding of roadway improvements, the City of Schertz retained Freese and Nichols, Inc. to assist in the development of a roadway impact fee system. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 1.1 METHODOLOGY To develop roadway impact fees, a series of work tasks were undertaken. These tasks are described below. 1. Meetings were held with City Staff to discuss impact fee methodology, project criteria and eligibility, and cost eligibility for consideration in the study. 2. Roadway service areas were developed to ensure conformity with legislative mandate, including six -mile maximum zones and within city limits. 3. Vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) in the PM peak hour was identified as the service unit of measure for analyses and impact fee calculations. 4. A roadway inventory was conducted to document lane geometrics, roadway functional classification, and system capacity. Traffic volume count data were collected in May 2015 to determine roadway utilization, and if any capacity deficiencies exist within each impact fee service area. Traffic volume counts were conducted at 30 locations throughout the city. 5. Projected 10 -year growth was calculated for service areas based on land use assumptions (projections of population and employment growth) and translated into residential, office, commercial and industrial VMT using service unit equivalencies. Trip rate data was obtained from Trip Generation, Ninth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and trip length statistics for Schertz were obtained from the travel demand model used in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan Study. The Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees report was publicly heard and approved by the Schertz City Council on November 28, 2017. 6. A capital improvements plan (CIP) to address projected growth was developed and separated by service area. The Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fees report was publicly heard and approved by the Schertz City Council on November 28, 2017. 7. Roadway costs associated with construction, engineering, right -of -way, and project financing for capital improvement projects were prepared by Freese and Nichols. Costs for study updates are eligible for recovery and were included in the total project cost. Roadway cost data was compiled and tabulated by service area. 8. As defined in Chapter 395, a credit analysis was applied to determine the discount to be applied to the cost of the CIP in determining a cost per service unit for each service area in lieu of the 50% credit. 9. The cost of capacity supplied, cost attributable to new development and the maximum cost per service unit was calculated for each service area. 10. This report was prepared to document the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the study. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 2.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Impact fee legislation requires that service areas be defined for impact fees to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating the need. Chapter 395 requires that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum and be located within the current city limits. Roadway service areas are different from other impact fee service areas, which can include the city limits and Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). This is primarily because roadway systems are "open" to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided with water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. A service area structure consisting of four (4) zones has been developed for Schertz and correlates with the current corporate boundaries, as depicted in Figure 1. Annexation in the ETJ was considered so that the service areas may be expanded in the future while still conforming to legislative mandate. Population and land use assumptions are important elements in the analysis of roadway systems. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. Growth and future development projections were formulated based on assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within the community. These land use assumptions, which include population projections, will become the basis for the preparation of impact fee capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. 3.1 BASE YEAR DATA Using the City's historical growth trends and data, the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz and future growth rate were derived. This "benchmark" information provides a starting basis of data for the ten -year growth assumptions. A full description of this analysis is provided in the 2017 Land Use Assumption Report located in Appendix G. For the purposes of documenting changes in population, land use, density, and intensity, the data format used as a basis to formulate the land use assumptions was principally population and employment. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.1.1 Growth Summary A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions of the planning period. One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single - family building permit data from the city and internal city projections. These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent for population. Based upon this data, analysis of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 3.1.2 2017 Population Using data provided by the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO), existing population estimates were developed at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. The U.S. Census Intercensal population data in conjunction with building permit data provided a base year population estimate of 40,339. 3.1.3 2017 Employment Similar to the population breakdown, base employment data was calculated using TAZ data from AAMPO. An interpolation was calculated to derive the 2017 employment estimates. Also, because the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, adjustments were made based on existing land uses and percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. Employment for each TAZ was broken down into basic, service, and retail uses as defined within the AAMPO data. Table 1 summarizes the base year employment. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR (2017) POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc., AAMPO 3.2 TEN -YEAR PROJECTION Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. 3.2.1 2027 Population The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902. Development details, such as The Crossvine Development and constraints from the Randolph Air Force Base, informed the distribution of the growth through the city in this 10 -year timeframe as seen in Table 2. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 7 TABLE 2: CITY OF SCHERTZ PROJECTED POPULATION Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 3.2.2 2027 Employment Employment projections for the year 2027 were based on data provided by AAMPO. For assumption purposes, an interpolation of the modeling year (2025 and 2040) numbers was calculated to derive the 2027 employment estimates per TAZ. Table 3 shows the total employment for the base year, projected employment for 2027, the net growth, and percent change. The increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent citywide, slightly higher than the population growth rate. TABLE 3: CITY OF SCHERTZ PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT Source: Freese and Nichols, Inc., AAMPO 3.3 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 8 TABLE 4: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 2017 -2027 SUMMARY City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 o � e Population ,�i"�tel" ">-rrlt�[.; � 4tf;J . 5,3�1� , • . 16568. " " .r% �. Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% ServiceArea 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Service Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 0,1 16 247 5�04 Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Service Area 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Service Area 3 408 1,111 703 10.5% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Service Area 4 0 20 20 - Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 9 4.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE Service units establish a relationship between roadway projects and demand placed on the street system by development, as well as, the ability to calculate and assess impact fees for specific development proposals. As defined in Chapter 395, "Service unit means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions." To determine the roadway impact fee for a particular development, the service unit must accurately identify the impact that the development will have on the major roadway system (i.e., arterial and collector roads) serving the development. This impact is a combination of the number of new trips generated by the development, the particular peaking characteristics of the land - uses) within the development, and the length of each new trip on the transportation system. The service unit must also reflect the capacity, which is provided by the roadway system, and the demand placed on the system during the time in which peak, or design, conditions are present on the system. Transportation facilities are designed and constructed to accommodate volumes expected to occur during the peak hours (design hours). These volumes typically occur during the peak hours as motorists travel to and from work. The vehicle -mile during the PM peak hour serves as the service unit for impact fees in Schertz. This service unit establishes a more precise measure of capacity, utilization and intensity of land development through the use of published trip generation data. It also recognizes legislative requirements with regards to trip length. This service unit has been tested and validated since the inception of impact fee legislation in 1989. 4.1 SERVICE UNITS Service units create a link between supply (roadway projects) and demand (development). Both can be expressed as a combination of the number of vehicles traveling during the peak hour and the distance traveled by these vehicles in miles. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 4.1.1 Service Unit Supply For roadway capital project improvements, the number of service units provided during the peak hour is simply the product of the capacity of the roadway in one hour and the length of the product. For example: Given a four -lane divided roadway project with a 600 vehicle per hour per lane capacity and a length of two miles, the number of service units provided is: 600 vehicles per hour per lane x 4 lanes x 2 miles = 4,800 vehicles -miles 4.1.2 Service Unit Demand The demand placed on the system can be expressed in a similar manner. For example, a development generating 100 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour with an average trip length of two miles would generate: 100 vehicle -trips x 2 mites /trip = 200 vehicle -miles Similarly, demand placed on the existing roadway network is calculated in the same manner with a known traffic volume (peak hour roadway counts collected in 2015) on a street and a given segment length. 4.2 SERVICE UNITS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT An important objective in the development of the impact fee system is the development of a specific service unit equivalency for individual developments. The vehicle -miles generated by a new development are a function of the trip generation and average trip length characteristics of that development. The following describes the process used to develop the vehicle - equivalency table, which relates land use types and sizes to the resulting vehicle -miles of demand created by that development. 4.2.1 Trip Generation Trip generation information for the PM peak hour was based on data published in the Ninth Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation is a reference publication that contains travel characteristics of over 100 land uses across the nation and is based on empirical data gathered from over 3,200 studies that were reported to the Institute by public agencies, developers and consulting firms. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 Pass -by and Diverted Trips Adjustments The actual "traffic impact" of a specific site for impact fee purposes is based on the amount of traffic added to the street system. To accurately estimate new trips generated by a new development, adjustments must be made to trip generation rates and equations to account for pass -by and diverted trips. The added traffic is adjusted so that each development is assigned only for a portion of trips associated with that particular development, reducing the possibility of over - counting by counting only primary trips generated. Pass -by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass -by trip for the convenience store. A pass -by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted in the assessment of impact fees of a convenience store. A diverted trip is a similar situation, except that a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. On a system -wide basis, this trip places a slightly additional burden on the street system but in many cases, this burden is minimal. Trip generation rates were reduced by the percentages presented in Table 5 in an effort to isolate the primary trip purpose. Adjustments were based on studies conducted by ITE and other published studies. The resulting recommended trip rates are illustrated as part of the Land Use /Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table illustrated later in this chapter. Rates were developed in lieu of equations to simplify the assessment of impact fees by the City and likewise, the estimation of impact fees by persons who may be required to pay an impact fee in conjunction with a development project. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 12 TABLE 5: TRIP REDUCTION ESTIMATES (PM PEAK HOURI -... .. ....:.... .. .:.:. ' -. 1 ce.lYip .. - P s9 y, DiAirte4l " A x Rat o �r; , 1ik1'I a :. . twiici6 Ihtlit .. t@ te; -T ' ' WI DCt tCtiOnS ... Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 Apartment 220 DU 0.62 0% 0% 0.62 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 0.16 0% 0% 0.16 Others Not Specified DU 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 1.49 0% 0% 1.49 Medical/ Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 3.57 0% 0% 157 Retail l Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 0.60 0% 0% 0.60 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.40 0% 0% 0.40 Motel 320 Rooms 0.47 0°% 0°% 0.47 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 20.22 15% 0% 17.19 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 4.49 25% 0% 337 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 4.35 28% 0% 3.13 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 4.84 26% 28% 123 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 6.94 0% 0% 6.94 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 5.17 25% 0% 3.88 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 3.71 34% 26% 1.48 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 2.62 40% 0% 1.57 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 5.98 43% 13% 2.63 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 4.15 28% 10% 157 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 2.11 28% 10% 1.31 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 9.48 36% 38% 2.48 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 19.07 63% 26% 2.10 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 4.18 0% 0% 4.18 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 2.33 48% 24% 0.65 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 4.50 40% 33% 1.22 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 4.99 0°% 0% 4.99 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 3.83 0% 0% 3.83 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 6.21 0% 0% 6.21 Pharmacy with Drive Thin 881 1000 sq. ft. 9.91 49% 13% 3.77 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 0.45 53% 31% 0.07 Bank with Drive Thm 912 1000 sq. ft. 24.30 47% 26% 6.64 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 9.85 43% 26% 111 Fast food with Drive Thm 934 1000 sq. ft. 32.65 50% 23% 8.72 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 5.19 55% 0% 234 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 0% 0% 3.11 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 3.71 34% 26% 1.48 Light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 0% 0% 0.97 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 0.73 0% 0% 0.73 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 0.32 0% 0% 0.32 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 0.26 0% 0% 0.26 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 0.12 0% 0% 0.12 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 0.76 0% 0% 0.76 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 0% 0% 0.97 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 0.17 0% 0% 0.17 Jr. / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0% 0% 0.12 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 0% 0% 0.55 Day Care Center 565 Students 0.81 0% 0% 0.81 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 0% 0% 0.55 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 With approval by the City Engineer, a local study may also be conducted by an Applicant to confirm rates in Trip Generation or to change rates reflecting local conditions. In such cases, a minimum of three similar sites should be counted. Selected sites should be isolated in nature with driveways that specifically serve the development and not other land uses. The results should be plotted on the scatter diagram of the selected land use contained in Trip Generation for comparison purposes. It is recommended that no change be approved unless the results show a variation of at least fifteen percent across the range of the sample size surveyed. Trip Length Trip lengths (in miles) are used in conjunction with site trip generation to estimate vehicle -miles of travel. Trip length data was based on information generated by modeling developed in the 2017 Schertz Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) and travel survey information. Travel characteristics were used to determine average trip lengths for common land use types. Table 6 summarizes the average trip lengths compiled from the forecast model. These trip lengths represent the average distance that a vehicle will travel between an origin and destination of which either the origin or destination contains the land -use category identified below. A localization adjustment was made to these to net out the portion of trip length on the federal highway system since the impact fee system does not include federal facilities in the Chapter 395 legislation. This localization adjustment was determined using the 2017 MTP model data. Data compiled by the 2017 MTP model represents the best available information on trip lengths for this area. Origin and Destination Adjustments The assessment of an individual development's impact fee is based on the premise that each vehicle -trip has an origin and a destination and that the development end should pay for one -half of the cost necessary to complete each trip. To prevent the potential of double charging, trip lengths were divided by two to reflect half of the vehicle trip associated with development. Table 6 illustrates the adjusted trip length. Finally, as the service area structure was based on a six -mile boundary, those land uses that exhibited trip lengths greater than six miles would be truncated to this threshold. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 TABLE 6: TRIP LENGTHS AND ADIUSTMENTS City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 Wit =; "'Local za" ; Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Apartment 220 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Others Not Specified DU 14.03 6.73 3.37 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Medical / Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Retail / Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 Motel 320 Rooms 13.31 6.39 3.19 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 12.76 6.12 3.06 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 12.76 6.12 3.06 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Pharmacy with Drive Thru 881 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Bank with Drive Thru 912 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Fast food with Drive Thru 934 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 12.76 6.12 3.06 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 12.76 6.12 3.06 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 11.88 5.70 2.85 Light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 15.91 7.64 3.82 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 9.23 4.43 2.22 Jr. / Community College 540 Students 22.34 10.72 5.36 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 13.81 6.63 3.31 Day Care Center 565 Students 13.81 6.63 3.31 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 13.81 6.63 3.31 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 Service Unit Equivalency Table The result of combining the trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency table which establishes the service unit rate for various land uses. These service unit rates are based on an appropriate development unit for each land use. For example, a dwelling unit is the basis for residential uses, while 1,000 gross square feet of floor area is the basis for office, commercial, and industrial uses. Other less common land uses use appropriate independent variables. Separate rates have been established for specific land uses within the broader categories of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional to reflect the differences between land uses within the categories. However, even with these specific land use types, information is not available for every conceivable land use; so engineering judgement must be used when needed. The equivalency table is illustrated in Table 7. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 TABLE 7: LAND USE VEHICLE -MILE EQUIVALENCY .., ... ,..... iTE " .. -.: FYev Ate. Tr`Iir1aI "x.17eIp ' , .'ehTi "1'er . l'andiisc, Clade.•. Unit wl�tlons ien lh'evilif Residential Single - family detached housing 210 DU 1.00 3.37 3.37 Apartment 220 DU 0.62 3.37 2.09 Continuing Care Retirement Community 255 DU 0.16 3.37 0.54 Others Not Specified DU 1.00 3.37 3.37 Office General Office Building 710 1000 sq. ft. 1.49 3.82 5.69 Medical / Dental Office 720 1000 sq. ft. 3.57 182 13.64 Retail ! Commercial Hotel 310 Rooms 0.60 3.19 1.91 All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms 0.40 3.19 1.28 Motel 320 Rooms 0.47 3.19 1.50 Movie Theater with Matinee 444 Screens 1719 3.06 52.60 Building Materials and Lumber store 812 1000 sq. ft. 3.37 185 9.60 Free standing Discount Superstore 813 1000 sq. ft. 3.13 2.85 8.92 Hardware /Paint Store 816 1000 sq. ft. 2.23 185 6.36 Garden Center 817 1000 sq. ft. 6.94 2.85 19.78 Nursery (Wholesale) 818 1000 sq. ft. 3.88 185 11.06 Shopping Center 820 1000 sq. ft. 1.48 2.85 4.23 Automobile Sales 841 1000 sq. ft. 1.57 185 4.47 Auto Parts Sales 843 1000 sq. ft. 2.63 2.85 7.50 Tire Store 848 1000 sq. ft. 2.57 185 7.32 Tire Superstore 849 1000 sq. ft. 1.31 2.85 3.73 Supermarket 850 1000 sq. ft. 2.48 2.85 7.07 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853 Fueling Positions 2.10 3.06 6.43 Discount Club 857 1000 sq. ft. 4.18 2.85 11.91 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1000 sq. ft. 0.65 2.85 1.85 Electronic Superstore 863 1000 sq. ft. 1.22 2.85 3.48 Toy Superstore 864 1000 sq. ft. 4.99 185 14.22 Apparel Store 876 1000 sq. ft. 3.83 2.85 10.92 Arts and Crafts Store 879 1000 sq. ft. 6.21 185 17.70 Pharmacy with Drive Thru 881 1000 sq. ft. 3.77 2.85 10.74 Furniture Store 890 1000 sq. ft. 0.07 2.85 0.20 Bank with Drive Thin 912 1000 sq. ft. 6.64 3.06 20.32 Restaurant 932 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 3.06 9.52 Fast food with Drive Thru 934 1000 sq. ft. 8.72 3.06 26.68 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop 941 Serving Positions 2.34 106 7.16 Automotive Care Center 942 1000 sq. ft. 3.11 3.06 9.52 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 1.48 185 4.23 light Industrial General Light Industrial 110 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 3.82 3.70 Manufacturing 140 1000 sq. ft. 0.73 3.82 2.79 Warehouse 150 1000 sq. ft. 0.32 3.82 1.22 Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 1000 sq. ft. 0.26 3.82 0.99 High -Cube Warehouse /Distribution Center 152 1000 sq. ft. 0.12 3.82 0.46 Utilities 170 1000 sq. ft. 0.76 3.82 2.90 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 182 3.70 Institutional Private School (K-12) 536 Students 0.17 2.22 0.38 Jr. / Commnunity College 540 Students 0.12 5.36 0.64 Church 560 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 3.31 1.82 Day Care Center 565 Students 0.81 3.31 2.68 Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.55 331 1.82 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS An inventory of major roadways that are designated as arterial and /or collector facilities on the Master Thoroughfare Plan was conducted to determine: 1) capacity provided by the existing roadway system, 2) the demand currently placed on the system, and 3) the potential existence of deficiencies on the system. Any deficiencies found to occur will be carried over in the impact fee calculations (netting out capacity made available by the CIP). Data for the inventory was obtained from the Master Thoroughfare Plan, field reconnaissance, and peak hour traffic volume count data. The roadways were divided into segments based on changes in lane configuration, major intersections, city limits or area development that may influence roadway characteristics. For the assessment of individual segments, lane capacities were assigned to each segment based on roadway functional class defined by the Master Thoroughfare Plan and type of existing cross - section, as listed in Table 8. Roadway hourly volume capacities are based on general carrying capacity values and reflect level -of- service (LOS) "D" operation based upon generally accepted capacities as defined in AAMPO planning references, which has been identified as the minimum acceptable traffic operational condition by cities. TABLE 8: ROADWAY FACILITY VEHICLE -MILE LANE CAPACITIES Divided Arterial* DA 675 Divided Collector* DC 550 Undivided Arterial UA 625 Undivided Collector UC 500 *Facilities with a two -way left turn lane (TWLTL) treated as a divided facility and marked with a Special Arterial (SA) or Special Collector (SC) designation. 5.1 EXISTING VOLUMES Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts conducted in May 2015. Automated traffic counts at 30 separate locations were collected on major roadways throughout the city. In an effort to minimize the total number of counts, data was collected at locations where traffic volumes would typify link volumes on the major segments within the immediate area. For segments not counted, existing volumes were used or estimates were developed based on data from adjoining roadway counts. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and entered into the database for use in calculations. A summary of volumes by roadway segment is included in the Appendix B as part of the existing capital improvements database. 5.2 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY SUPPLY An analysis of the total capacity for each service area was performed. For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of capacity supplied were calculated using the following: Vehicle -Miles of Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) A summary of the current capacity available on the roadway system by service area is detailed below. 5.3 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING DEMAND The level of current usage in terms of vehicle -miles was calculated for each roadway segment. The vehicle- miles of existing demand were calculated by the following equation: Vehicle -Miles of Demand = PM peak hour volume x Length of segment (miles) The total vehicle -miles of demand by service area is also listed below. 5.4 VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES For each roadway segment, the existing vehicle -miles of excess capacity and /or deficiencies were calculated and are listed in Table 9. Each direction was evaluated to determine if vehicle demands exceeded the available capacity. If demand exceeded capacity in one or both directions, the deficiency is deducted from the supply associated with the impact fee capital improvement plan. A summary of peak hour excess capacity and deficiencies is also shown in the table. Any deficiencies identified under current operations will be carried over to the impact fee calculation. A detailed listing of existing excess capacity and deficiencies by roadway segment is also located in the Appendix B. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 TABLE 9. PEAK HOUR VEHICLE -MILES OF EXISTING CAPACITY, DEMAND, EXCESS CAPACITY AND DEFICIENCIES 1 12,708 2,938 10,047 277 2 37,321 20,846 16,690 215 3 15,917 7,479 9,067 629 4 1,478 130 1,348 0 Total 67,424 31,393 37,151 1,121 PROJECTED Chapter 395 requires a description of all capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area. This section describes the projected growth, vehicle -miles of new demand, capital improvements program, vehicle -miles of new capacity supplied, and costs of the roadway improvements. 6.1 PROJECTED GROWTH The projected growth for the roadway service area is represented by the increase in the number of new vehicle -miles of demand generated over the 10 -year planning period. The basis for the calculation of new demand is the population and employment projections that were prepared as part of the Schertz Land Use Assumptions (LUA) Report for Impact Fees dated October 2017 by Freese and Nichols with a growth rate approved by the Schertz CIAC on May 13, 2015. Estimates of population and employment were prepared for the years 2017 and 2027. Population data was provided in terms of the number of dwelling units and persons. Employment data was broken into three classes of employees that include basic, retail and service, comprising a variety of employment groupings. Basic employment generally encompasses the industrial and manufacturing uses; retail employment includes commercial and retail uses; and service employment generally encompasses government and office uses. A summary of the projected growth is summarized in Table 4. 6.1.1 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand Projected vehicle -miles of demand were calculated based on the net growth expected to occur over the 10 -year planning period, and on the associated service unit generation for each of the population and employment data components (basic, service and retail). Separate calculations were performed for each City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 20 data component and were then aggregated for each service area. Vehicle -miles of demand for population growth were based on dwelling units (residential). Vehicle -miles of demand for employment were based on the number of employees, and then converted to square footage of building space using estimates of square footage per employee for industrial, office and retail uses. The 10 -year projected vehicle -miles of demand by service area are summarized in Table 10. The Appendix C details the derivation of the projected demand calculations. TABLE 10. 10 -YEAR PROIECTED SERVICE UNITS OF DEMAND 1 10,461 2 17,905 3 14,918 4 124 Total 43,408 The impact fee CIP is aimed at facilitating long -term growth in Schertz. The City has identified the City- funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees can be made up of: • Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; • Projects currently under construction; and • Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. All arterial and collector facilities in the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan not to the ultimate build -out were included in the impact fee CIP to provide flexibility in the development of the community due to currently rapid rates of development. The only exception is the FM 3009 extension which was excluded due to the high cost and undetermined scope and timing of the project. No completed (recoupment) projects were included in this initial study. 6.2.1 Eligible Projects Legislative mandate stipulates that the impact fee CIP contain only those roadways which are included on the City's official Master Thoroughfare Plan that are classified as arterial or collector status facilities. Impact fee legislation also allows for the recoupment of costs for previously constructed facilities and City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 21 projects currently under construction; however, after consideration, none of the projects were included for recoupment. All of these projects conform to the Master Thoroughfare Plan requirements and will consider only the costs incurred by the City for facility implementation. 6.2.2 Eligible Costs In general, those costs associated with the design, right -of -way acquisition, and construction and financing of all items necessary to implement the roadway projects identified in the capital improvements plan are eligible. These estimates are based on the ultimate roadway section identified by functional classification in the 2017 Master Thoroughfare Plan Report with an excerpt of these assumed sections in the Appendix F. It is important to note that upon completion of the capital improvements identified in the CIP, the city must recalculate the impact fee using the actual costs and make refunds if the actual cost is less than the impact fee paid by greater than 10 percent. To prevent this situation, conservative (low) estimates of project cost are considered. Chapter 395.012 identifies roadway costs eligible for impact fee recovery. The law states that: "An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the cost of constructing capital improvements for facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees; and fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan." The following details the individual cost components of the impact fee CIP. Construction: Construction costs include those costs which are normally associated with construction, including: paving, dirt work (including sub -grade preparation, embankment fill and excavation), clearing and grubbing, retaining walls or other slope protection measures, and City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 22 general drainage items which are necessary in order to build the roadway and allow the roadway to fulfill its vehicle carrying capability. Individual items may include; bridges, culverts, inlets and storm sewers, junction boxes, manholes, curbs and /or gutters, and channel linings and other erosion protection appurtenances. Other items included in cost estimates may include: sidewalks, traffic control devices at select locations (initial cost only), ancillary adjustments to existing utilities, and minimal sodding /landscaping. Engineering: These are the costs associated with the design and surveying necessary to construct the roadway. Because the law specifically references fees, it has generally been understood that in -house City design and surveying cannot be included. Only those services that are contracted out can be included and it may be necessary to use outside design and surveying firms to perform the work. For planned projects, a percentage based on typical engineering contracts was used to estimate these fees. Right -of -Way: Any land acquisition cost estimated to be necessary to construct a roadway can be included in the cost estimate. For planning purposes, only the additional amount of land needed to bring a roadway right -of -way to thoroughfare standard was considered. For example, if a 120' right -of -way for an arterial road was needed and 80' of right -of -way currently existed, only 40' would be considered in the acquisition cost. The cost for right -of -way may vary based on location of project and was based on data from the most current County Appraisal District data. Debt Service: Predicted interest charges and finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principle and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by the city to finance capital improvements identified in the impact fee capital improvements plans. They cannot be used to reimburse bond funds for other facilities. This cost was determined through a credit analysis found in Appendix 1. Previous Assessments: The cost for any previous assessments collected by the City on projects identified on the impact fee CIP must be removed from program consideration. As this is a new impact fee program, there are no previous assessments to consider in the initial calculation. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 23 Study Updates: The fees paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision can be included in the impact fees Only the cost necessitated by new development is considered for impact fee calculations. For example, if only 60% of the capacity provided by the impact fee CIP is needed over the ten -year window, then only 60% of the cost associated with those facilities will be considered. This can be seen in Service Area 1 as another example, where net capacity supplied by the CIP is 42,189 vehicle -miles (Table 12) while the projected demand is 10,461 vehicle -miles (Table 10). Therefore, only the portion of cost attributed to the projected demand, 24.8 percent, is considered in the impact fee cost per service unit calculation in the next phase of the study's Impact Fee Report. This calculation is shown for each service area in Table 13. 6.2.3 Impact Fee CIP The proposed CIP consists of 71 project segments over the four service areas and entail the buildout of the full Master Thoroughfare Plan network, as seen in Figure 2. By including the full network, there is flexibility in the impact fee program funds to adapt to development needs and ensure credit is given to developers building thoroughfare roadways. Project costs were developed based on unit cost estimates compiled by Freese and Nichols. Individual project costs were developed for engineering, right -of -way, and construction, as found in the Appendix E. Each roadway segment uses the Master Thoroughfare Plan's defined functional classification to determine the ultimate roadway standard for each link. Additionally, impact fee study update costs were attributed to the project costs. For recently completed projects, actual costs must be input to meet legislative mandates, but no completed projects were included in this initial impact fee program. The cost for the Impact Fee CIP (IFCIP) program totals $229.0 million, excluding debt service. Debt service costs attributable to new development will be included in the cost per service unit calculation analysis as defined in the credit analysis. Figure 2 and Table 11 illustrate and list the capital improvement projects and their associated total cost for the impact fee program. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 24 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 25 Saw Area Project W Roadway From TO Project Status Length (m it No- Of Type Lanes Rdwy Thoroughfare Plan Description Pct. in Serv. Area Total Project Cost 1 1 FM 2252 JH 35 FM 482 New 0.32 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,566,800 1 2 FM 2252 FM 482 Railroad Tricks New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,146,000 q/X 3 FM 2252 Railroad Tracks N City Limits New 0,22 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $509,850 1/2 4 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Railroad Tracks New 1,25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,202,650 1 5 E/W Connector (1) NUS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,513,000 1 6 EAN Connector (2) NIS Connector (1) FM 2252 New 0.99 2 LC Commercial Collector B 100% $4,269,000 1 7 FM 432 FM 2252 Hubertus Rd New 1.05 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,456,100 1 8 FM 482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks New 1.00 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $5,147,800 1 9 FM 482 800' W of Fresenhahn Friesenhatin Ln New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $754,100 I/X 10 FM 482 Fresenhahn Ln Schwab Rd New 0.59 4 DA Principal Arterial 50% $1,530,000 1 11 FM 482 Schwab Rd E City Limits New 1.20 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $6,205,500 1 12 Hubertus Rd N 35 FM 482 New 0.57 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,855,700 1 13 Hubertus Rd FM 482 N City Limits New 0.30 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $1,572,300 1 14 Friesermahn To H 35 FM 482 New 0.72 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,343,600 1 15 Schwab Rd N 35 FM 482 New 0.63 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $4,374,700 1 16 E/W Connector (3) Hubertus Rd David Lack Blvd New 1.59 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $6,110,000 1 17 Eckhardt Rd Froboese Ln Green Valley Rd New 1.11 2 US Residential Collector 100% $3,727,100 1 18 Schwab Rd H 35 S City Limits New 1.14 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $5,680,700 1 19 Fropoese Ln Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.57 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $2,030,400 1 20 Frodoese Ln 2200'E of Eckhardt E City Limits New 0.26 2 UC Residential Collector 100% $890,000 1 21 Green Valley Rd W City Limits E City Limits New 0.87 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,199,500 1 22 Homestead Pkwy End Ex Homestead Pkwy S City Limits New 0.33 2 LO Residential Collector 100% $1,178,500 1 23 Country Club Blvd Scenic Links S City Limits New 0.35 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,257,100 1 24 E/W Connector (4) Country Club Blvd Homestead Pkwy New 0.77 2 LO Residential Collector 100% $2,671,200 1 25 E/W Connector (4) Schwab Rd Eckhardt Rd New 0.45 2 DO Residential Collector 100% $1,602,000 1 26 FM 1103 IN 35 Old Wiederstem Rd New 0.70 4 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,000,000 1 27 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Old Wiederstem Rd New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $2,667,000 1 28 N/S Connector (2) R 35 Old Wiederstent Rd New 0.73 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,635,700 1 29 SAN Connector (5) N/S Connector (1) FM 1103 New 2.00 2 US Residential Collector 100% $7,097,200 I/X 30 Old Wiederstem Rd NIS Connector (11 CherTv Tree Dr New 2.17 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $5.143.600 Sub-total SA 1 24.22 $97,337,100 2 31 Doerr Ln N City Limits Lookout Rd New 0.91 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $3,249,900 2/1 4 N/S Connector (1) N 35 Railroad Tracks New 1.25 4 DA Secondary Arterial 50% $3,130,900 2 32 FAN Connector (2) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LIC Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,200 2 33 E/W Connector (6) FM 3009 NIS Connector (1) New 0.81 2 LO Commercial Collector B 100% $3,386,100 2 34 Mid-Cities Pkwy N 35 FM 3009 New 0.98 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $3,293,700 2 35 E/W Connector (1) FM 3009 N/S Connector (1) New 0.81 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,190,900 2 36 E/W Connector (7) W City Limits Doerr Ln New 0.65 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,231,100 2 37 Lookout Rd Tri-County Pkwy Schertz Pkwy New 0.74 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $2,743,600 2 38 Four Oaks Ln End of Ex .Four Oaks Ln NIS Connector (1) New 0.54 3 SO Commercial Collector A 100% $1,977,300 2 39 Wiederstain Rd E City Limits FM 3009 New 0.64 4 DA Secondary Arterial 100% $3,079,800 2 40 Waderstem Rd Schanz Pkwy W City Limits New 0.41 2 Uc Residential Collector 100% $1,294,700 2 41 Baptist Health Or Ripps-Kreusler Wiederstein Rd New 0.27 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $992,900 2 42 Ripps-Kreusler Baptist Health Or End of Rippe Kreusler New 0.22 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $803,900 2 43 Maske Rd FM 1518 Oak St New 0.54 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% $1,827,600 2 44 Macke Rd Realignment Oak St Schanz Peery New 0.88 2 LIC Residential Collector 100% $3,645,200 2 45 FM 1518/Main St Masks Rd Oak St New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Arterial 100% $4,494,500 2 46 FM 1518 N City Limits SA 3 Limit New 0.36 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $436,300 213 47 FM 1518 SA 3 Limit Schanz Pkwy Ext. New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial 50% $222,650 2 48 FM 78/John Peterson Sled W City Limits E City Limits New 1.81 6 DA Principal Arterial 100% $2,683780 Sub-total SA 2 14.34 $47,071,030 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 26 SON Project Project Area Ni Roadway 3/2 47 FM 1518 3 49 FM 1518 3 50 Schaefer Rd 3/X 51 RAF - Bumette 31X 52 Lower Seguin Rd 3 53 Lower Seguin Rd 3 54 Lower Seguin Rd 3 55 NIS Connector (3) 3 56 NIS Connector (3) 3 57 N/S Connector (4) 3 58 N/S Connector (4) 3/X 59 W Ware Seguin Rd 3 60 W Ware Seguin Rd 3 61 NIS Connector (5) 3 62 NIS Connector (5) 3 63 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) 3 64 Trainer Hale Rd (E/W) 3 65 Ware Seguin Rd 3 66 E Ware Seguin Rd 3/4 67 Graytown Rd 3 68 NIS Connector (6) 3 69 E/W Connector (8) Sub-total SA 3 DA 4/3 67 Graytown Rd 4 70 Binz-Engleman Rd 4 71 Scenic Lake Dr Sub-total SA 4 Totals: TABLE 11: IMPACT FEE CIP LISTING (CONTINUED) Pct. in Serv. Air 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% W City Limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% Binz-Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% 3.19 65.08 Totals: Engineering Cost Right-of-Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 204.131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost* $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) Cost for (2) 5 year updates LJC- Undivided collector indcates roadway half in/half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two service areas Total Project Cost $222,650 $5,165,000 $1,536,700 $1,279,500 $686,450 $6,998,900 $7,860,400 $764,000 $1,380,400 $894,600 $725,000 $900,550 $2,236,900 $3,780,500 $3,227,400 $8,020,500 $7,710,300 $4,736,300 $4,739,900 $2,000,600 $1,712,600 $8,482,300 $75,061,450 $2,000,600 $4,667,000 $2,777,400 $9,445,000 $228,914,580 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 27 Project Length No- Of Type Thoroughfare Plan From TO Status Inc it Lanes Rdwy Description SA 2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext, New 0.39 6 DA Principal Arterial Schanz Pkwy Ext. IH 10 New 4.09 6 DA Principal Arterial W City Limits FM 1518 New 0.48 2 LIC Residential Collector Schaefer Rd E City Limits New 0.55 4 DA Secondary Arterial W City Limits E of Tates Or New 0.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial E of Tates Or W of Canopy Bend New 1.76 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial W of Canopy Bend E City Limits New 1.72 4 DA Secondary Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.15 4 DA Principal Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.27 4 DA Principal Arterial N City Limits S City Limits New 0.26 2 LID Residential Collector N City Limits S City Limits New 0.21 2 LID Residential Collector W City Limits Boeing Or New 0,57 2 LIC Residential Collector Boeing Dr NIS Connector (5) New 0,67 2 LIC Residential Collector Lower Seguin Rd W Ware Seguin Rd New 1.10 2 LIC Residential Collector W Ware Seguin Rd E Ware Seguin Rd New 0.93 2 LIC Residential Collector Weir Rd IN 10 New 1.66 4 DA Principal Arterial FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd (NIS) New 1.51 4 DA Secondary Arterial Graytown Rd NIS Connector (5) New 1.35 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial N/S Connector (5) FM 1518 New 1.41 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial Ware Seguin Rd IN 10 New 0.47 3 SC Commercial Collector A IN 10 E City Limits Now 2.33 3 SC Commercial Collector A 23.33 Pct. in Serv. Air 50% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% Boeing Dr IN 10 New 1.11 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 50% W City Limits Graytown Rd New 1.30 3 SA Secondary Rural Arterial 100% Binz-Engleman Rd IH 10 New 0.77 3 SC Commercial Collector A 100% 3.19 65.08 Totals: Engineering Cost Right-of-Way Cost Construction Cost $14,149,150 $10,633,600 204.131.830 TOTAL NET COST $228,914,580 Future Impact Fee Update Cost* $100,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $229,014,580 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Recoup- Recoupment Project SA- Special arterial (with two way left turn lane) New - New Project SC- Special collector (with two way left turn lane) Cost for (2) 5 year updates LJC- Undivided collector indcates roadway half in/half out of City Limits indicates roadway split between two service areas Total Project Cost $222,650 $5,165,000 $1,536,700 $1,279,500 $686,450 $6,998,900 $7,860,400 $764,000 $1,380,400 $894,600 $725,000 $900,550 $2,236,900 $3,780,500 $3,227,400 $8,020,500 $7,710,300 $4,736,300 $4,739,900 $2,000,600 $1,712,600 $8,482,300 $75,061,450 $2,000,600 $4,667,000 $2,777,400 $9,445,000 $228,914,580 City of Sch ertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 27 6.2.4 Projected Vehicle -Miles Capacity Available for New Growth The vehicle -miles of new capacity supply were calculated similar to the vehicle -miles of existing capacity supplied. The equation used was: Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity = Link capacity per peak hour per lane x No. of Lanes x Length of segment (miles) Vehicle -miles of new supply provided by the CIP are listed in Table 12. While projects listed in the CIP have not been built, the existing utilization on CIP roadways and system deficiencies on the current network (by service area) have been removed from the total supply to properly account for new "net" capacity available for consumption by new growth. Table 12, Column E, depicts net availability of supply by the CIP. Appendix D details capacity calculations provided by the CIP program. TABLE 12: CAPACITY AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP *All current network deficiencies (Table 9) are located on CIP roadways and therefore accounted for in Column B, Existing Utilization, of this table. As part of this initial program assessment, the current network deficiencies listed in Table 9 (calculated in Appendix B) are all located on CIP roadways. Future updates may find deficiencies on other system facilities which are not captured as part of the CIP analysis. These system deficiencies are deducted from the total capacity supplied by the CIP based on the premise that improvements from the CIP program (full network implementation) will alleviate issues that currently exist due to a limited network. A comparison of net capacity provided by the proposed CIP relative to 10 -year needs is listed below in Table 13. An analysis reveals an adequately matched overall impact fee CIP program to address growth attributable to new development. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 28 TABLE 13: PROJECTED DEMAND AND NET CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED CIP 6.2.5 Cost of Roadway Improvements The total IFCIP cost, including study update costs, and cost of net capacity supplied to implement the roadway improvements plan projects by service area is shown in Table 14. If traffic exists on proposed CIP project roadways or there are any deficiencies present on the current network in each respective service area (existing utilization), the total system cost is adjusted to reflect the net capacity being made available by the impact fee program. In other words, only the unused portion of the CIP and its associated costs are considered eligible. A detailed listing by project segment in each service area can be found in Appendix F. Appendix H details system costs by service area. TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ANALYSIS 1 $97,374,686 $5,917,209 $91,457,477 2 $47,091,987 $13,072,601 $34,019,386 3 $75,100,115 $11,795,549 $63,304,566 4 $9,447,792 $365,723 $9,082,070 Total $229,014,580 $31,151,082 $197,863,498 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 29 7.0 CALCULATION This chapter discusses the calculation of the cost per service unit and the calculation of roadway impact fees. The roadway impact fee will vary by the particular land use, service area, and size of the development. Examples are included to better illustrate the method by which the roadway impact fees are calculated. 7.1 COST PER SERVICE UNIT The cost per service unit is calculated by dividing the cost of the CIP necessitated and attributable to new demand (net cost) by the projected service units of growth over the 10 -year planning period. 7.1.1 Cost Attributable to New Development Generally, the cost per service unit varies by service area because of; the net capacity being provided by the proposed projects, variations in cost of CIP and, the number of service units necessitated by new growth in each impact fee service area. Where net capacity supplied is greater than demand, the cost per service unit is simply the cost of the net capacity divided by the number of service units provided. In this case, onlythe portion of the CIP necessitated by new development is used in the calculation. If net capacity supplied is less than projected new demand, then the cost per service unit is calculated by dividing the total cost of net supply by the portion of new demand attributable and necessary by development. The result is generally a decrease in the cost per service unit, because such cost is spread over the larger number of service units of growth. This is shown in Table 15 in Columns A -C calculating the cost attributable to new development through the percent of CIP capacity attributable calculated in Table 13. The debt service costs for the portion of CIP costs was determined in the credit analysis study performed by Eddie Peacock, PLLC. Based on 3 bond series over the 10 -year period with 3% interest rates, the cost of debt service attributable to new development is shown in Table 15 with a detailed breakdown in Appendix 1. The resultant total cost of the impact fee program attributable to new development in the 10 -year period is calculated by summing this debt service cost with the aforementioned cost attributable from the CIP cost. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 30 TABLE 15: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT 1 $91,457,477 24.6 $22,529,530 $2,679,760 $25,209,290 2 $34,019,386 98.3 $33,446,663 $3,978,291 $37,424,954 3 $63,304,566 38.1 $24,088,331 $2,865,171 $26,953,502 4 $9,082,070 3.8 $349,635 $41,588 $391,223 Total $197,863,498 42.1 $80,414,159 $9,564,810 $89,978,969 7.1.2 Credit Analysis Per Chapter 395, the cost of the CIP must be credited for ad- valorem tax generated through new development either through a credit analysis or a flat 50% credit. The City of Schertz opted to perform the credit analysis in lieu of the 50% credit with Eddie Peacock, PLLC performing the calculation. The resulting CIP credit is listed in Table 16 and detailed further in Appendix I. IL FIR 1.1 11101=0111 ' ► _ W111610 ".111 1 $25,209,290 $7,974,490 $17,234,800 2 $37,424,954 $13,649,051 $23,775,903 3 $26,953,502 $11,371,991 $15,581,511 4 $391,223 $94,525 $296,698 Total $89,978,969 $33,090,057 $56,888,912 7.1.3 Maximum Cost per Service Unit Calculation Table 17 lists the results of the cost per service unit calculation by service area. The base cost per service unit reflects the true burden to the City for the implementation of the roadway capital improvements program. As per state law, a credit for the portion of ad- valorem tax revenues generated by improvements over the program period must be given. Based on the credit analysis the maximum collection rate after credit reflects the maximum amount per service unit that can be charged to be in compliance with the state statute. Appendix H details the maximum fee per service unit calculation for each service area. City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 31 TABLE 17: COST PER SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY 7.2 CALCULATION OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEES The calculation of roadway impact fees for new development involves a two -step process. Step One is the calculation of the total number of service units that will be generated by the development. Step Two is the calculation of the impact fee due by the new development. Step 1: Determine number of service units (vehicle- miles) generated by the development using the equivalency table. No. of Development x Vehicle -miles = Development's Units per development unit Vehicle -miles Step 2: Calculate the impact fee based on the fee per service unit for the service area where the development is located. Development's x Fee per = Impact Fee due Vehicle -miles vehicle -mile from Development City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 32 Examples: The following fees would be assessed to new developments in Schertz in Service Area 1 if the cost per service unit were $1,647.00 Single - Family Dwelling 1 dwelling unit x 3.37 vehicle - miles /dwelling unit = 3.37 vehicle -miles 3.37 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $5,550.39 10,000 square foot (s.f.) Office Building 10 (1,000 s.f. units) x 5.69 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 56.90 vehicle -miles 56.90 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $93,714.30 20,000 s.f. Retail Center 20 (1,000 s.f. units) x 4.23 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 84.60 vehicle -miles 84.60 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $139,336.20 100,000 s.f. Warehouse 100 (1,000 s.f. units) x 1.22 vehicle - miles /1,000 s.f. units = 122.00 vehicle -miles 122.00 vehicle -miles x $1,647.00 /vehicle -mile = $200,934.00 City of Schertz, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 33 APPENDICES Appendix A: Roadway Impact Fee Definitions ROADWAY IMPACT FEE DEFINITIONS Average Trip Length - the average actual travel distance between two points. The average trip length by specific land use varies. Diverted Trip - similar to pass -by trip, but a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. Impact Fee - a charge or assessment imposed by a city against new development to generate revenue for funding or recouping roadway improvements necessitated and attributable to new development. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit - the highest impact fee that may be collected by the City per vehicle -mile of supply. Calculated by dividing the costs of the capital improvements by the total number of vehicle- miles of demand expected in the 10 -year planning period. Pass -by Trip - a trip made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way to office from home. PM Peak Hour - the hour when the highest volume of traffic typically occurs. Data collection revealed the peak hour of travel to be between 5:00 and 6:00 pm. PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts - the number of vehicles passing a certain point during the peak hours of travel. Traffic counts are conducted during the PM peak hour because the greatest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour. Primary Trip - a trip made for the specific purpose of visiting a destination; for example, from home to office. Roadway Demand - the demand placed on the roadway network as a result of development. Determined by multiplying the trip generation of a specific land use by the average trip length. Roadway Supply (or Capacity) - the number of service units provided by a segment of roadway over a period of time. Determined by multiplying the lane capacity by the roadway length. Service Area - the area within the city boundaries to be served by capital improvements. Criteria for developing the service area structure include: 1) restricted to six -mile limit by legislation (to ensure proximity of roadway improvements to development), 2) conforms to census or forecast model boundaries, 3) projects on CIP as boundaries, 4) effort to match roadway supply with projected demand, and 5) city limit boundaries. Service Unit - a measure of use or generation attributable to new development for roadway improvements. Also used to measure supply provided by existing and proposed roadway improvements. Trip - a single, one - direction vehicle movement from an origin to a destination. Trip Generation - the total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time or the total of all trips entering and exiting a site during that designated time. Used in the development of 10 -year traffic demand projections and the equivalency table. Based primarily on data prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Vehicle - for impact fee purposes, any motorized appurtenance that carries passengers and /or goods on the roadway system during peak periods of travel. Vehicle -mile - a unit used to express both supply and demand provided by, and placed on, the roadway system. A combination of a number of vehicles traveling during a given time period and the distance which those vehicles travel in miles Appendix B: Existing Conditions Analysis DEFINITIONS LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (roadway with continuous left turn) SA = special arterial (roadway with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volume of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. A and B indicate the two directions of travel. Direction A is a northbound or eastbound and direction B is southbound or westbound. If only one half of the roadway is located within the service area (see in service area), the opposing direction will have no volume in the service area. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY TOTAL The number of total service units (vehicle - miles) supplied within the service area based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by existing traffic on the DEMAND PK -HR roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by existing traffic in the PK -HR VEH -MI afternoon peak hour. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The number of service units of demand in excess of the service units supplied. PK -HR VEH -MI NOTE: Excess capacity and existing deficiencies are calculated separately for each direction. It is possible to have excess capacity in one direction and an existing deficiency in the other. When both directions have excess capacity or deficiencies, the total for both directions are presented. Schertz Roadway Impact Fee Study Existing Capital improvements Analysis Se" Area Roadway From To A B Length No. of (m j) Lanes Type C Lane CapacityServ. Pct. in Peak Hour Area A D Volume B Total Ax BxC VMT Supply P, Hr Total AxD VMT Demand :f Pk Hr Total Excess TotalVMT Capacity Total VMT: Deficiency. 1 FM2252 IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.87 2 UA 625 100% 73 250 323 1084 280 804: 0 1/X FM2252 Railroad Tracks NCity Limits 0.22 2 UA 625 50% 0 250 250 138 55 83 0' 1 FM482 FM2252 Hubertus Rd 1.05 2 U 625 100% 46 52 98 1315 103 `. 1212 104 1 FM482 Hubertus Rd Railroad Tracks 1.00 2 UA 625 1001 46 52 98 1252 98 1154' So`: 1 FM482 Railroad Tracks Friesenhahn Ln 0.18 2 UA 625 100% 46 52 98 222 17 204` 0 1/X FM482 Friesenhahn Ln ECity Limits 0.59 2 UA 625 50% 46 0 46 369 27 `. 342` '0< 1 Hubertus Rd IH 35 FM482 0.57 2 U 625 100% 30 57 87 708 49 659 -0'. 1 Friesenhahn Ln IH 35 FM482 0.72 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 717 72 6451 !:0' 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 Railroad Tracks 0.53 3 SA 675 100% 120 315 435 721 232 > 489 '.`0 1 Eckhardt Rd IH 35 S City Limits 1.17 2 UA 625 100% 19 11 30 1466 35 1431 0 1 Schwab Rd IH 35 End of Schwab Rd 0.36 2 UA 625 100% 3 2 5 454 2 452. 0 1 Country Club Blvd IH 35 Northcliffe Golf Club 0.46 2 D 550 100% 50 50 100 507 46 461 is 0:` 1 Country Club Blvd Northcliffe Golf Club End of Ex Country Club'. 0.39 2 D 550 100% 50 50 100 434 39 395' :0 1 FM 1103 IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.70 2 UA 625 100% 590 1020 1610 877 1129 25 277: 1 Belmont Pkwy IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.74 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 739 30 710 <0 1/X Old Wiederstein Rd Cibolo Valley Dr Cherry Tree Dr 2.17 2 U 625 50% 0 177 177 1356 384 972 -0 1/X Wiederestein Rd IH 35 Old Wiederstein Rd 0.56 2 UA 625 501% 607 0 607 348 338 10= `0': Sub -Tote/ 12.29 <12,708 2,938 10,047 277': 2 FM 3009 NCity Limits IH 35 1.62 4 D 675 100% 1010 900 1910 4368 3090 1278: 0 2 Doerr Ln Bell N Dr Lookout Rd 0.91 2 UC 500 100% 50 50 100 913 91 : 822` 0 ". 2 Lookout Rd Doerr Ln Schanz Pkwy 0.62 2 UC 500 100% 133 219 352 623 219 404` 0 2 Four Oaks Ln FM3009 End of Four Oaks Ln 0.33 2 U 500 100% 20 20 40 328 13 315` <0 2/X Schertz Pkwy Lookout Rd Nof IH 35 0.51 2 UA 625 50% 50 0 50 321 26 295: 0' 2 Schertz Pkwy N of 11135 IH 35 0.23 2 UA 625 100% 50 50 100 290 23 267 : 0 2 Schertz Pkwy IH 35 FM78 /John Peterson Bl 3.14 4 D 675 100% 712 753 1465 8471 4596 3875: '0' 2 FM3009 IH 35 S of Woodland Oaks Dr 1.53 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 4129 2828 : 1301 0 2/X FM 3009 S of Woodland Oaks Dr Live Oak Rd 0.47 5 SA 675 50% 0 980 980 640 465 175` '0 2 FM 3009 Live Oak Rd FM 78 /John Peterson BI 1.16 5 SA 675 100% 869 980 1849 3124 2140 `. 985: `0- 2 Wiederstein Rd FM3009 WCity limits 1.45 2 U 500 100% 100 100 200 1449 290 1159! `0 2 Savannah Dr Schertz Pkwy WCityLimits 0.90 2 U 500 100% 50 50 100 905 90 814: 0 2 Live Oak Rd Schanz Pkwy FM3009 6.86 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 858 172 686' 0 2 Maske Rd FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy 1,23 2 UC 500 100% 97 105 202 1225 247 978 0` 2 Borgfeld Rd FM3009 ECity Limits 0.43 4 UC 500 100% 509 423 932 859 400 459' <0` 2 FM 1518 /Main St Maske Rd Oak St 1.30 2 UA 625 100% 397 351 748 1623 971 652: =0: 2 FM 1518 /Main St Oak St Aviation Blvd 0.24 4 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 600 179 : 420 0 2 FM 1518 /Main St Aviation Blvd FM 78 /John Peterson BI 0.29 2 UA 625 100% 351 397 748 366 219 147 '.0 2 FM 1518 NCity Limits SA3 Limit 0.36 2 U 625 100% 755 508 1263 452 457 42 47 2/3 FM 1518 SA3 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 755 0 755 245 296 0" 51= 2 Aviation Blvd WCityLimits FM 1518 0.53 2 U 625 100% 613 438 1051 659 554 105 0" 2 FM78 /John Peterson BI Cibolo Creek Schertz Pkwy 0.67 5 SA 675 100% 1525 1096 2621 1809 1756 170' 117''. 2 FM78 /John Peterson BI Schertz Pkwv E City Limits 1.14 5 SA 675 100% 998 520 1518 3065 1723 1342 2 Sub -Total 20.31 37,321 20,846 16,690 215i' 3/2 FM 1518 SA2 Limit Schertz Pkwy Ext. 0.39 2 UA 625 50% 0 508 508 245 199 46 0 3 FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy Ext, Lower Seguin Rd 1.31 2 UA 625 100% 755 508 1263 1638 1655 153 .170`. 3 FM 1518 Lower Seguin Rd Trainer Hale Rd 1.93 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 2417 2568 168. 3191 3 FM 1518 Trainer Hale Rd IH 10 0.85 2 UA 625 100% 790 538 1328 1057 1123 : 74 139-: 3 Schaefer Rd W End of Schaefer E of FM 1518 0.48 2 UC 500 100% 100 100 200 478 96 383; 0 3/X Schaefer Rd E of FM 1518 E City Limits 0.55 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 277 55 222 3/X Schaefer Rd W City Limits RAF - Burnette 0.14 2 UC 500 50% 100 0 100 69 14 : 55> 0 3/X RAF - Burnette Schaefer Rd ECity Limits 0.56 2 UC 500 50% 50 0 50 278 28 : 250'. 0 3/X Lower Seguin Rd W City Limits Eof Tates Dr 0.35 2 U 500 50% 304 0 304 175 107 69: `0 3/X Lower Seguin Rd E of Tates Dr FM 1518 2.27 2 UC 500 50% 304 188 492 2272 1118 1154 0 3 Lower Seguin Rd FM 1518 ECity Limits 1.78 2 U 500 100% 37 16 53 : 1783 94 1688 '0i. 3 Ware Seguin Rd Boeing Dr E -S Bend in Ware Segu 0.71 2 UA 625 1001 19 20 39 884 28 857. : 0! 3 Ware Seguin Rd E -S Bend in Ware Seguin R S -E Bend in Ware Saga 0.92 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 916 36 881 <0 3 Ware Seguin Rd S -E Bend in Ware Seguin R FM 1518 1 Al 2 UC 500 100% 20 19 39 1412 55 1357: '0'`. 3/4 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 50% 238 0 238 697 265 431= 0 3 Pfeil Rd Ware Seguin Rd IH 10 1.32 2 UC 500 100! 22 8 30 1319 40 1279 01: Sub -Total 16.08 15,917 7,479 9,067. 6295 4/3 Graytown Rd Boeing Dr IH 10 1.11 2 UA 625 50% 0 89 89 697 99 597: "0. 4 Scenic Lake Dr Boeing Dr IH 10 0.78 2 UC 500 100% 20 20 40 781 31 750': '0 `. Sub -Total 1,90 1,478 130 1,3485 '0 Total 50.57 67,424 :.31,393 37,151 1,921 Notes: DA- Divided arterial Direction A= Northbound or Eastbound UA- Undivided arterial Direction B= Southbound or Westbound SA- Special arterial with dual -left turn lane */X indcates roadway half in /half out of City Limits DC- Divided collector UC- Undivided collector Appendix C: Projected 10 -Year Growth (Vehicle -Miles of New Demand) Vehicle -Mile Trip Generation by Service Area, Schertz Impact Fee Based on September 2017 land Use Assumptions by FNI Fstimated Pe.,ide.wiai nm4h Vehicle -M'le Tdn (' na Linn SerNce Area Added Dwelling Units Vehicle -Miles per DU Total Vehicle -Miles 1 1,061 3.37 3,576 2 1,389 3.37 4,681 3 3,445 3.37 11,610 4 20 3.37 67 Estimated Basic Emulnvment Growth Vhirle -Mile Generation (1.500 SF/emnlnvee) Service Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 694 1,500 1,041,000 170 3,852 2 1,751 1,500 2,626,500 3.70 9,718 3 365 1,500 547,500 170 2,026 4 0 1,500 0 3.70 0 Fstimated .4enrire Fmnlnvmant ('-4h Vahirla -Mile Genaratinn 1500 SF1P.- Invee) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000lSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 595 500 297,500 5.69 1,693 2 419 500 209,500 5.69 1,192 3 106 500 53,000 5.69 302 4 20 500 10,000 5.69 57 Fstimated Retail Fmnlnvmant (gym h Vahicla-Mila Renaratinn 11 non RF /amn1rni ) SerNce Area Added Employees Square Feet per em p. Total S uare Feet Vehicle -Miles Per 1000fSF Total Vehicle -Miles 1 317 1,000 317,000 4.23 1,341 2 547 1,000 547,000 4.23 2,314 3 232 1,000 232,000 4.23 981 4 0 1,000 0 4.23 0 Vehicle -mile Generation Summary SeNlce Area Residential Growth Vehicle -Miles Basic Growth Vehicle -Miles Service Growth Vehicle -Miles Retail Growth Vehicle -Miles -- Total -- Growth Vehicle- Miles' 1 3,576 3,852 1,693 1,341 - -- 10,461 - 2 4,681 9,718 1,192 2,314 17,905- 3 11,610 2,026 302 981 -- .14,918- 4 67 0 57 0 -------- -124 - Totals 19,934 15,596 3,243 4,636 - - - -- 43,408 - SUEquivalency Residential DU 3.37 Basic Employ SF 3.70 Service Employ SF 5.69 Retail Employ SF 4.23 Appendix D: Roadway Capital Improvements Plan Definitions LANES The total number of lanes in both directions available for travel. TYPE The type of roadway (used in determining capacity): DA = divided arterial UA = undivided arterial SA = special arterial (arterial with continuous left turn) DC = divided collector UC = undivided collector SC = special collector (arterial with continuous left turn) PK -HR VOLUME The existing volumes of cars on the roadway segment traveling during the afternoon (P.M.) peak hour of travel. IN SERVICE AREA If the roadway is located on the boundary of the service area (with the city limits running along the centerline of the roadway), then half of the roadway is inventoried in the service area and the other half is not. This value is either 50% or 100 %. VEH -MI SUPPLY The number of total service units (vehicle- miles) supplied within PK -HR TOTAL the service area, based on the length and established capacity of the roadway type. VEH -MI TOTAL The total service unit (vehicle -mile) demand created by DEMAND PK -HR existing traffic on the roadway segment in the afternoon peak hour. EXCESS CAPACITY The number of service units supplied but unused by PK -HR VEH -MI existing traffic in the afternoon peak hour. CIP VEH -MI The number of service units used by existing traffic in excess of DEFICIENCY the available service units supplied by the roadway in the afternoon peak hour. � o o o 0 0 00 0 0...0 0 00 0 00 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 of o 0 0 00 0 00 0 o a - U r V) 2 NO (9 O O O W W 'O M1 V O' m 0 O 0 O N O O MI F O O O O O O O t«6 N V N r d@ VI N M M O N 0 O O V N M 'M OM I M ' .O � .N W Q . M O O m V N o V . h . O . h m W O O . m 9. F W h NcO N O.N N V h M� W N'h O N MN MM h V.M V W O> N H 'O <p M M O N h M U5 r r S � 2 M M O O O O M M W (O N F O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h 00 O O O O O O O E F-o = m N Q N N M Q d O d c4 ?D f9 t9 iQ 6 0 4 4 0 61 d Q d O O 4 d Q d d O d 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 M O 0 0 o N o a M - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn ¢ Q ¢ w m ¢ ¢ Q ¢ m@ m m o o O o m °° m °° O° m m° m O m O O O m o o o N 5 . m o c c c C a U o U..' .ga9J .o .o N ,o N N N 'C 'C _ d N Lo,. N N N N N A < o o Q o o o o 'C Q Q O ¢ O ¢ O o o Q o o 4 '�' U U U U U U¢ U U .`, U U U I U U U 'a u m a m R a m iu m m is m m m m m m m �t m m o m m m 'm m m m F, m m o m m E sa m m m N C G o C G (} G U U U C C C G is G C C p ❑ a o 0 0 Q1 C C c C c E = E a o 5 a o a a 'oo ._ o o -aa' o 0 o N N N o N N N ° av a"i aoi w a a` a` a` o. a`. a a oai m a"i - a c w ooi E- E E E- E E E cn v> u> zn E E E v> m v ta w m m v u5 v) m w E yr E E E va E E E o ° o a cc o a o v ° o as °J : d d d d d U d d d d Q d d U d U U d U U d U U U U d d d U Q U Q U U U Q U U U o � 2 J M (p N N d) O> O La N c) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a .E .E x .E .E .E .E .E tY m h c c c Ci c f= -o a o o J N o o o U 2 U Y U U U U o s a@ to U o r va F tL fl' z CC LL LL Z fr Li. N W fE_ z 1L LL❑ ii w W W w w w Z W 0 0 0 LL U J CC Z Z iA_ Z❑ u) Z J a a � o m o O � GSi X C aai aai z ii � z J Rs n aai N N O 4 M C O C N N 9 W C J 0 6 4 T w M W N N V��' Ip O o sn v° srs U U cNV v °' z cn v �n v> o a u5 s W `c U U o 0 o a o o M M rn v5 °o c u M M cn a M o° U c cai o u m M M U t/> U M 2 2 M� LL LL z z !.i. Z LL rn ?? S LL � N w vt U uJ ? z z z LL LL Z I.I_ F w O O O O EL o o p o O S O O U CS 'O 'O a -O C C T S] U U Q O 'a, U U tJ U J T N N N C !t! G 41 0 fS U G G M C O C G C r G N tt1 w t(? C o o N N N N N C C A O m .O .> C? a C 3 N N N U U U a. m w �' 3 U 3 0 0 w �' U U ° U U U ;,7,0`. �' i j Ua U U CJ C3 0 0 s s w s o o m o o °a '> `'> 0 0 K I LL. IL z w w IL LL LL L Z Z tL V1 W w u) LL LL 0 Z U W W W z z w O ❑ z W w W W m1 LL .O .° d' u7 CR r a2 O O - .- N m e- N X N X X' o � ,- •- .`- ,- •- •- ,- •- •- .`- •- ,- �- •- ,- ,- •- ,- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- - •- N O ri of o......0 o o o o o o o . o . . o . . o o ....o o o 75 -Ta -cz -c5 �5 -c -c5 -c < 0 0 0 0 a a¢¢ a¢ 0 < Q¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 < < so O. L 2 . Q Q. -p -p 2- E- .2- E E E 0- a`. 0- E E E E E !Y o o cr [2 w CK w Of E E o 0 to a) < < < < < < < oO � M M . O. N N N chD � Iq M 't MI M 3 3 z z z z z z z z z zl z z zo z z z zo z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ZI z z z x -0 LU tis 0 a. I Q. U) T D W, o U) 0 V) U) .1 U) w Cl) w w co co (n U) m z 3� z I za O LU E X t z, z, < C) U) R m 0. 2, oz U<) U) w z z z z 0 z 0 CL N 0 0 0 & o E & mu U) co of vo) V) U) c fn ai c W Q 0 0 C) U) U) co U) w U) U) a5 w Q U) U) m I X x W-1 O O Appendix E: Roadway Improvement Plan Cost Analysis 8 3 s 2 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 s 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 3 8 o g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O q q m 15 15 16 Ill 16 14 4 16 1� - <O 14 4 14 c4 14 li 1: 1� 15 13 ll� 15 �7 Ill 14 -7 a - - - - - - - - - - - w 0 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 °° 8 8 8 8 8 o0 c� �q cD (D n cD q cl� �q n N N oa v� cr� N (q q in v� n "I oO N cR � cl� IQ IQ M �q 13� 1� testa ,4 c\i 4 1 1 - N N - - "i 6 1 D - - - - - o; a -1 e; 2 a a -1 11; 2 71 v; -" ;; -1 -" - - . - - -" -I I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . °O . . . . . . . . . 0 -D q Iq 10 q 1� �D CO q 1� LO q 0? ° N q ml LO P� N 1� ct 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 � o ° o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °F9 0 0 0 � N o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 4 an � di ro 75 a -�a -F� -6 — — — — — - m m m t -ra g- cL 't 't 't, T� 1� oo < —o —o - — — o < < < < < o o o o < < o < < < < < < < < < < -m -F� -Fo -Fo 76 co -F, -�6 7� 'F� -Z6 -�a --�a -za 'ffi le -ffi 16 76 16 �a 21 2- S., .2- 2 2 2 2 �2 o E E 2o ct E clt tt ct c� L �t E ol E E E E E E E U3 u) co u) E o- E E u) u) u) E u) E E E u) E E E o o In u, c� cf c� o o o o o o < < < < < U < < < < < < < U Q U U Q U U Q U U U U < < < U < U < Z I N O o O . . O. . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 c5 6 ('i N l 6 0 6 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 o o 2 2 2 z- Z` z w U) 0 Q U) Lu I Lu U) w m w 0 0 0 z z z 0' 9') z I C c N tab 10 10 N w N LU 'T' U) T 'N �: tit U') 0, Z5 >z m Z5 b Z5 6 6 i2 2 2 2c m o o 0 0 0 Q o 0 o u E ��E 2'R :�R :2 2 if - . I L. 2 z I w Z w w :f :f (D 3: 0 w w z z w 0 ❑ �2 :1 ,2 �2 t2 — .- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O. o o O 8 8 8 .1 1. .1 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. .1 1. 1. 1. OM NO V 1. .1 .1 1 1. V Na 1. yy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .0 �: cl� ll� 0 1� Iq IQ MO clz 00 11 O -i q N N N M N q q 1: M Ffi 14 C6 14 1 vs U -D ID cD 1� Iz c� -D �q 10 cD Iq cli m ll� D c6 q O 14 4 11: ll� ml m �T o F. Lu in m 75 75 75 m Q Q 76 m < �5 �3 'Fo m 75 c, -m 6 �t' m m t z -6 z _ °a < 0 0 0 < o 0 < U0 < 0 0 u Q C) 0 < < < r y < < < io -F m m m m m -M ct Of x m o w 2 2 1 .2- Z t Z3 21, i�l 2� 2� 2 2 o o . . . w w - E E E o E E E o j) CL u) E E o E E E E M it . , D� af of o o o u) of ol lo o o u) w u) to U CJ U7 J) Li < U U U U U < < < < < < U < < < < < < U U U U U U < < < < < U U < K ❑ D u) u) (n ❑ u) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ u) u) ❑ ❑ ❑ n n n D > ❑ ❑ (n u) In (o v) u) u) u) -6 Z Ic! 2 . O 4 c5 c5 , — . O. . . . . . . . . . . . I N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 z z z z z z z z z zi o m u) z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z( z z zi LU m us in z- z, m o m Lu Lu u) (n co u) o w �22 Lu A Lu w o u) u) u) u) w El it g E m ❑ p E 8� 9 u) 22 15 5 N m o o u) a� co z w z z z z m 1 6 z m, co Fn 15 m k6 x oe ae 2 .2 2 & & .2 .2 Z5 I o -2 1 m o 1 38 U o o o co u) . . . . 0 0 Q 0 c c o Ly � � to u) @ of co w z z z z Lu (D z X x x Ni ml O 4i ig 0 F- Appendix F: Roadway Project Cost Estimates Master Thoroughfare Plan Roadway Sections Freeways, Limited Access The freeway is typically uninterrupted with grade separations at intersections and ramped entries and exits to and from they crossroads as on 1 -35. However, limited access r,• { freeways may also be interrupted for signalized arterial roadway crossings. a a I I , Freeways typically operate at free flow speeds over 55 mph and have two or more lanes in a7a�N�tia{RC? GGWP¢FI4 ¢,iTtI�TCGmti each travel direction. Freeways are typically r� M ff"ao- R bra f*&,*N 'Ptw N1S barrier or median separated, or in the example of the managed lanes under design for 1 -35, can be grade separated from the rest of the corridor where ROW is constrained. The managed lanes element is intended to help maintain a free -flow speed, even during times of peak congestion on adjacent facilities. Freeways, especially controlled access, are typically paralleled by service roads that serve as the interface between the freeway and the adjacent community's arterial and collector street network. Source: Figure 11. 1-35 Managed lanes illustrative - View from Schertz Parkway. Principal Arterials The recommended ROW for principal arterials ranges from 120 to 130 feet. The ROW is intended to accommodate higher volumes and levels of mobility, providing substantial regional access and statewide travel. A ROW of 120 feet allows for four travel lanes and associated spaces. Where six travel lanes are needed, a typical section of 130 feet can be used. Urban principal arterial roadways provide the predominant passageways through the urbanized portions of the community and connect to the regional freeway network, typically providing for curb and gutter drainage. Intersections are provided at all arterial, collector and local roadways and as needed allowing for local land access directly to the facility. Intersections with arterial roadways are typically signalized and provisions made for one or more left turn lanes and occasionally right -turn lanes to facilitate the through movements along the arterial. Principal urban arterial roadways provide at least two travel lanes in each direction plus a center median area for separations of traffic. The median area may be used to provide channelized left -turn lanes, continuous left -turn lanes, and /or streetscape. Where traffic operational Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan analyses support the need for greater throughput capacity, a six -lane section may be considered — as is the case for the ultimate build out of FM 1518 south of FM 78. Access management practices should be employed to minimize the impacts of property access (i.e., driveways) on the principal arterial facility. Sidewalks, five to ten feet in width, should be provided along either sides of the roadway, buffered from travel lanes. A divided median is key for this classification of roadway, and a median width minimum of 16 feet is included. A divided median of sufficient width allows area for dedicated left turn lanes at intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts, and preservation of traffic flow. The median may be raised, or surfaced depending on the adjacent land use. Driveway access onto principal arterials should be limited by access management and spacing requirements, and parking along arterial roadways is generally prohibited. The illustrations below show typical sections for four and six travel lanes with surfaced medians. • High degree of regional mobility, higher traffic volumes and operational speeds • Access is carefully managed • Curb and gutter section with underground stormwater utilities and drainage • Examples include Roy Richard Drive (FM 3009), FM 78, FM 1103, and FM 1518 south of FM 78. Figure 13. Six -Lane Principal Arterial Section Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Arterial The ROW for a secondary arterial in Schertz is 90 feet wide. The arterial is intended to accommodate medium volumes and local mobility, and provide for connections to neighboring communities. Secondary arterial roadways are intended for local trips, so design speeds should also be notably lower than principal arterials. A ROW of 90 feet allows for four travel lanes, and space to buffer different travel modes. A divided median is also important for this classification of roadway, allowing some area for reduced width left turn lanes at minor intersections and provides access management for fewer turning conflicts. Additional ROW may be preferred at major intersections. Driveway access to Secondary Arterials should also be guided by access management and spacing requirements. Parking along secondary arterial roadways is generally prohibited, unless parallel parking bays are provided in addition to travel lanes, which may be desirable in a potential mixed -use transit oriented district north of 1 -35. Bicycle accommodation is intended to be provided on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path), buffered from the roadway. • Cross -Town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and operational speeds • Managed Access • Four -lane divided • Curb and gutter drainage • Examples include Lower Seguin Road east of FM 1518, Wiederstein /Old Wiederstein Road, and the east -west portion of Trainer Hale Road. Figure 1. Secondary Arterial Section — Wederstein Road Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Secondary Rural Arterial Rural Secondary Arterial roadways carry traffic across significant segments of the city, connect principal arterials to collectors and accommodate moderate volumes at higher speeds. This section is intended for use where adjacent, planned land uses are lower intensity, and access points fewer than the urban section would provide. The recommended ROW for Secondary Rural Arterials is 90 feet and is intended to include a three -lane section, with two travel lanes and a surfaced median. Travel lanes should be 12 feet wide with 6- to 8- foot -wide shoulders to accommodate emergency parking, extended site lines, and bicycles. Wide areas at the edge of paved shoulders provide for stormwater drainage and buffer from the roadway from adjacent property. Where sidewalks are provided, they should be between the drainage channel and the edge of the ROW. Driveways should still be guided by access management principles. A two -way left - turn lane in the center of the section provides buffer distance from oncoming traffic and left turn opportunities without obstructing the through- movement. An adjacent 20- foot -wide trail easement allows for accommodating pedestrians and bicycles on a shared -use path (or hike - and -bike path) sufficiently buffered from the travel way, and opportunities for tree growth. • Cross -town mobility • Accommodates medium traffic volumes and higher operational speeds • Access is managed • Two -lane divided • Open section drainage Examples include Lower Seguin Road west of Hollering Vine and adjacent to Randolph AFB, and Ware Seguin Road west of FM 1518. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Collector roadways serve to provide access to higher functional class facilities, access to residential areas, and provide access and circulation to commercial areas. They are designed for short trips, lower speeds, and connections between residential and commercial areas. They are differentiated from arterial streets by their length and degree of access to adjacent development where driveway access is seldom limited. The recommended ROW for Collector roadways is 70 feet wide. The pavement width of 40 feet is wide enough to provide different layouts of lane striping to accommodate adjacent uses — whether it is on street parking, or bike lanes, or a center -turn lane, the width is intended to be flexible over time as needs change. Three typical sections are provided: one residential section with on street bike lanes, one commercial section with a middle turn lane for frequent driveways and turn - movements, and one commercial section with on street parking. • Collection and distribution of traffic • Speeds and volumes dependent on adjacent land uses and neighborhoods served • Access to development and neighborhoods • Connectivity to arterial and residential collector streets Typical Residential Collector — 70 -foot ROW: 7 -foot buffered bike lanes accommodate bicycles of all comfort levels. Examples include Ray Corbett Drive, Live Oak Road, Wiederstein Road west of FM 3009, Country Club Boulevard, Eckhardt Road, and segments of Ware Seguin Road. '- •- • • •' Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Typical Commercial Collectors — 70 -foot ROW — applicable in Southern Schertz near 1 -10 and northern Schertz near 1 -35. The 12- foot -wide outside lanes can accommodate more experienced bicycles. A shared - used path on one side accommodates less experienced bicycles. Figure 18. Commercial Collector (TOD) - Example: New Streets in TOD area LOCI Residential and Commercial/industrial Streets The primary function of local streets is to provide access to and from properties. Local streets feed to and from the collector street network, but occasionally may tie directly to arterial streets. The urban local residential street is described in the Schertz Unified Development Code as a 30 -foot pavement width, with curb - and - gutter drainage and minimum 5- foot -wide sidewalks on each side of the street, buffered from the curb. Local residential streets have a 50- foot -wide ROW. Local commercial /industrial streets are described as 42 feet of pavement, with curb and gutter drainage, 5 -foot sidewalks, and a 60- foot -wide ROW. Local streets are not illustrated on the MTP map, but are encouraged to be developed to increase connectivity, lessen block lengths, and encourage active and non -auto modes of travel for people on foot, pedestrians in wheelchairs, and people on bike. Chapter 3. Thoroughfare System Plan Impact Fee CIP Project Cost Estimates City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,690 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 84,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 203,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 79,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 169,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,950 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 190,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,236,950 Mobilization 5% $ 61,900 Contineencv 10% $ 129,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,428,800 7% $ 100,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 2 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 FM 482 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,379 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 158,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 92,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 368,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 2,545,600 127,300 267,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,940,200 7% $ 205,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 3 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 2252 Railroad Tracks to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 58,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 111,600 4 10" Flex Base 7,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 140,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 54,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,650 LF $ 25.00 $ 116,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,970 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 12,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 31,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 19,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 126,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 825,000 Mobilization 5% $ 41,300 Contineencv 10% $ 86,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 953,000 7% $ 66,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 4 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,600 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 66 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 198,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 324,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 4 10" Flex Base 44,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 792,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 44,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 308,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 44,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 44,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 26,400 LF $ 25.00 $ 660,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 550,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 16,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 84,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 179,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 107,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 718,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,822,250 241,200 506,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,569,900 7% $ 389,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 445,500 $ 445,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 5 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial - No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 316,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 649,800 4 10" Flex Base 43,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 774,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 43,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 301,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 43,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 43,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 20,910 LF $ 25.00 $ 522,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 290,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 154,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 92,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 619,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15 ©,000 4,175, 300 208,800 438,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,822,600 7% $ 337,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 352,800 $ 352,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 6 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) N/S Connector (1) to FM 2252 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,227 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 206,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 439,200 4 10" Flex Base 27,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 502,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 27,900 SY $ 7.00 $ 195,300 6 TX -5 Geogrid 27,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 27,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,460 LF $ 25.00 $ 261,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 695,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 49,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 124,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 74,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 497,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,232,200 Mobilization 5% $ 161,700 Contineencv 10% $ 339,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,733,300 7% $ 261,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 FM 2252 to Hubertus Rd Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,544 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 56 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 168,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 272,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 4 10" Flex Base 37,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 666,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 37,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 259,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 37,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 37,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 22,180 LF $ 25.00 $ 554,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 9,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 460,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 32,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 163,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 62,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 155,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 93,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 622,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,246,550 Mobilization 5% $ 212,400 Contineencv 10% $ 445,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,904,900 7% $ 343,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 207,900 $ 207,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 8 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Hubertus Rd to Railroad Tracks Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 5,280 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 53 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 159,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 13,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 260,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 28,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 507,600 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 246,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,120 LF $ 25.00 $ 528,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 440,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 31,090 SY $ 5.00 $ 155,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 59,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 148,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 89,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 593,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000 4,005,050 200,300 420,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,626,000 7% $ 323,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 198,000 $ 198,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 9 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 800' West of Friesenhahn Ln. to Friesenhahn Ln. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (►f): 800 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 97,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 37,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,200 LF $ 25.00 $ 80,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,710 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 22,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 90,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 585,750 Mobilization 5% - $ 29,300 Contineencv 10% $ 61,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 676,700 7% $ 47,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 10 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Friesenhahn Ln. to Schwab Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,115 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 32 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 96,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 154,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 300,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 145,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,470 LF $ 25.00 $ 311,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 18,350 SY $ 5.00 $ 91,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 87,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 351,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100;000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,381,500 Mobilization 5% $ 119,100 Contineencv 10% $ 250,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,750,700 7% $ 192,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 116,800 $ 116,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 482 Schwab Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,336 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 64 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 192,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 310,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 33,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 608,400 4 10" Flex Base 42,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 761,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 42,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 296,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 42,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 42,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 25,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 633,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 530,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 37,310 SY $ 5.00 $ 186,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 71,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 178,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 106,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 712,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,828,900 Mobilization 5% $ 241,500 Contineencv 10% $ 507,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,577,500 7% $ 390,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 237,600 $ 237,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 12 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 289,800 4 10" Flex Base 20,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 361,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 12,040 LF $ 25.00 $ 301,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 250,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 17,720 SY $ 5.00 $ 88,600 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 33,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 84,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 50,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 338,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,201,000 Mobilization 5% $ 110,100 Contineencv 10% $ 231,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,542,300 7% $ 178,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 135,400 $ 135,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 13 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HUBERTUS ROAD FM 482 to N. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,584 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 16 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 8,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 153,000 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 74,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,340 LF $ 25.00 $ 158,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 46,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 44,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 26,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 178,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,156,750 Mobilization 5% $ 57,900 Contineencv 10% $ 121,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,336,200 7% $ 93,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 142,600 $ 142,600 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 14 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FRIESENHAHN LANE IH -35 to FM 482 Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 1,690 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 17 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 51,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 62,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 129,600 4 10" Flex Base 8,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 149,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,300 SY $ 7.00 $ 58,100 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 84,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,820 SY $ 5.00 $ 14,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 34,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 139,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 150,000' 1,056,300 52,900 111,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,220,200 7% $ 85,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 38,000 $ 38,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 15 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to FM 482 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 3,326 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 200 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 - - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 218,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 25,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 453,600 4 10" Flex Base 29,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 532,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 29,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 207,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 29,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 29,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,310 LF $ 25.00 $ 332,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 41,760 SY $ 5.00 $ 208,800 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 47,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 118,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 70,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 472,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other At -grade RR crossing - - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,317,750 Mobilization 5% $ 165,900 Contineencv 10% $ 348,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,832,100 7% $ 268,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 274,400 $ 274,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 16 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E/W CONNECTOR (3) Hubertus Rd. to David Lack Blvd. Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 8,395 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 84 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 252,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 302,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 35,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 639,000 4 10" Flex Base 41,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 739,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 287,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 41,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 16,800 LF $ 25.00 $ 420,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 700,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,990 SY $ 5.00 $ 69,950 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 69,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 172,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 103,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 690,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,587,250 Mobilization 5% $ 229,400 Contineencv 10% $ 481,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 5,298,400 7% $ 370,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 440,700 $ 440,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 17 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate ECKHARDT ROAD Froboese Ln. to Green Valley Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 212,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 446,400 4 10" Flex Base 28,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 516,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 200,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 293,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 13,020 SY $ 5.00 $ 65,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 45,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 113,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 68,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 453,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,944,550 Mobilization 5% $ 147,300 Contineencv 10% $ 309,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,401,100 7% $ 238,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 87,900 $ 87,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 18 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHWAB ROAD IH -35 to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial =_ No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 6,019 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 61 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 183,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 14,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 296,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 32,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 579,600 4 10" Flex Base 40,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 723,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 40,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 281,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 40,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 40,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 602,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 500,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 15,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 76,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 65,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 164,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 98,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 656,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 4,267,700 Mobilization 5% - $ 213,400 Contineencv 10% $ 448,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,929,300 7% $ 345,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 406,300 $ 406,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 19 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,010 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 103,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 23,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 58,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 35,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 233,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,514,950 Mobilization 5% $ 75,800 Contineencv 10% $ 159,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,749,900 7% $ 122,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 158,000 $ 158,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 20 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FROBOESE LANE E/W Break Pt. 1 to E/W Break Pt. 2 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,380 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 106,200 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 7.00 $ 47,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 69,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,070 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 26,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 16,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 106,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 694,850 Mobilization 5% $ 34,800 Contineencv 10% $ 73,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 802,700 7% $ 56,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 31,100 $ 31,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 21 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GREEN VALLEY ROAD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 4,594 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 46 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 138,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 226,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 441,000 4 10" Flex Base 30,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 552,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 30,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 214,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 30,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 30,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 18,380 LF $ 25.00 $ 459,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 385,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,740 SY $ 5.00 $ 58,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 50,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 125,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 75,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 501,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,258,500 Mobilization 5% $ 163,000 Contineencv 10% $ 342,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,763,700 7% $ 263,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 172,300 $ 172,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 22 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate HOMESTEAD PARKWAY Existing Homestead Pkwy. to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,742 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 18 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 54,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,200 Cy $ 20.00 $ 64,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 133,200 4 10" Flex Base 8,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 154,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 8,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 60,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 8,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 8,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,490 LF $ 25.00 $ 87,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,870 SY $ 5.00 $ 19,350 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 13,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 33,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 20,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 135,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 879,500 Mobilization 5% $ 44,000 Contineencv 10% $ 92,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,015,900 7% $ 71,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 91,500 $ 91,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 23 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD Scenic Links to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 68,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 142,200 4 10" Flex Base 9,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 163,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,100 SY $ 7.00 $ 63,700 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 105,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,110 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 14,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 36,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 21,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 144,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 938,550 Mobilization 5% $ 47,000 Contineencv 10% $ 98,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,084,200 7% $ 75,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 97,000 $ 97,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 24 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Country Club Blvd. to Homestead Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,073 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 148,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 20,000 SY $ 7.00 $ 140,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 20,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 20,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,150 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 225,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,988,250 Mobilization 5% $ 99,500 Contineencv 10% $ 208,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,296,600 7% $ 160,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 213,800 $ 213,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 25 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (4) Schwab Rd. to Eckhardt Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,376 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 24 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 72,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 86,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 181,800 4 10" Flex Base 11,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 210,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 81,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,760 LF $ 25.00 $ 119,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 130,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 26,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 46,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 27,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 183,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,195,300 Mobilization 5% $ 59,800 Contineencv 10% $ 125,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,380,700 7% $ 96,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 124,700 $ 124,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 26 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1103 IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 3,696 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard funded through City Go Bonds, TxDOT, and AAMPO. City contribution anticipated at $2,000,000 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Construction City contribution - - - $ 2,000,000 Engineering /Survey /Testing 7% $ - Right -of -Way Acquisition Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ - $ - 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 27 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (1) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 135,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 79,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 47,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 316,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,158,000 Mobilization 5% $ 107,900 Contineencv 10% $ 226,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,492,500 7% $ 174,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 28 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: N/S CONNECTOR (2) IH -35 to Old Wiederstein Rd. Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,854 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadwa Shared -Use Path bicycle facil hfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 39 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 117,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 190,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 370,800 4 10" Flex Base 25,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 462,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,700 SY $ 7.00 $ 179,900 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 15,420 LF $ 25.00 $ 385,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 320,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,850 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 42,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 105,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 63,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 420,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,731,250 Mobilization 5% $ 136,600 Contineencv 10% $ 286,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,154,700 7% $ 220,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 260,200 $ 260,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 29 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (5) N/S Connector (1) to FM 1103 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 10,552 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 106 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 318,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 380,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 44,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 802,800 4 10" Flex Base 51,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 928,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,600 SY $ 7.00 $ 361,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 51,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 21,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 527,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,700 SY $ 50.00 $ 585,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,450 SY $ 5.00 $ 117,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 81,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 203,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 122,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 814,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 5,294,300 Mobilization 5% $ 264,800 Contineencv 10% $ 556,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,115,100 7% $ 428,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 554,000 $ 554,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 30 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate OLD WIEDERSTEIN ROAD N/S Connector (1) to Cherry Tree Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 =_ Length (If): 11,458 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 115 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 345,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 28,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 562,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 61,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,101,600 4 10" Flex Base 76,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,375,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 76,400 SY $ 7.00 $ 534,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 76,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 76,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 45,840 LF $ 25.00 $ 1,146,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 19,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 955,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 29,280 SY $ 5.00 $ 146,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 124,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 312,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 187,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,248,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 8,115,300 Mobilization 5% $ 405,800 Contineencv 10% $ 852,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 9,373,300 7% $ 656,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 257,800 $ 257,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 31 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate DOERR LANE N. City Limits to Lookout Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,805 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 49 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 147,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 174,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 365,400 4 10" Flex Base 23,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 423,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 23,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 94,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 23,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 23,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 240,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 400,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,010 SY $ 5.00 $ 40,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 38,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 95,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 57,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 381,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ 18 Other At -grade RR crossing- $ 150,000 $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 150,000 15©,000 2,629,600 131,500 276,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,037,300 7% $ 212,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 32 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (2) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard - On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ ? $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 128,000 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,900 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 33 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (6) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Commercial Collector B No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 42 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street parking (9' + 9') Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 360,000 4 10" Flex Base 22,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 412,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,560 LF $ 25.00 $ 214,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 0 SY $ 5.00 $ - Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 39,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 98,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 59,100 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 393,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,558,200 Mobilization 5% $ 127,900 Contineencv 10% $ 268,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,954,800 7% $ 206,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 34 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MID - CITIES PARKWAY IH -35 to FM 3009 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,174 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 - - - - - Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 52 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 156,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 186,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 21,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 394,200 4 10" Flex Base 25,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 455,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 25,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 101,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 25,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 25,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 10,350 LF $ 25.00 $ 258,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 430,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,620 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 41,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 102,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 61,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 410,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,664,950 Mobilization 5% $ 133,300 Contineencv 10% $ 279,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,078,200 7% $ 215,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 35 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (1) FM 3009 to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 4,277 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 62 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 43 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 129,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 258,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 531,000 4 10" Flex Base 35,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 633,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 35,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 140,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 35,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 35,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 17,110 LF $ 25.00 $ 427,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,650 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 48,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 121,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 72,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 485,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,157,400 Mobilization 5% $ 157,900 Contineencv 10% $ 331,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,646,900 7% $ 255,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 288,700 $ 288,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 36 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (7) W. City Limits to Doerr Ln. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,432 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 35 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 105,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 261,000 4 10" Flex Base 16,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 302,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,870 LF $ 25.00 $ 171,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 190,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 38,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 25,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 63,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 38,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 255,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,659,400 Mobilization 5% $ 83,000 Contineencv 10% $ 174,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,916,700 7% $ 134,200 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 180,200 $ 180,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 37 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOOKOUT ROAD Tri- County Pkwy. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 3,907 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 40 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 120,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 16,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 297,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 345,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 76,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,820 LF $ 25.00 $ 195,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,510 SY $ 5.00 $ 32,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 31,100 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 77,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 46,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 310,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,219,950 Mobilization 5% - $ 111,000 Contineencv 10% $ 233,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,564,100 7% $ 179,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 38 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FOUR OAKS LANE Existing Four Oaks Ln. to N/S Connector (1) Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 2,851 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane J 38 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 149,700 $ 149,700 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 39 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: E. City Limits to FM 3009 Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 3,379 90 Raised 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 34 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 102,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 166,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 18,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 325,800 4 10" Flex Base 22,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 406,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 90,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,520 LF $ 25.00 $ 338,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 280,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,640 SY $ 5.00 $ 43,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 35,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 88,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 53,300 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 355,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,307,400 Mobilization 5% $ 115,400 Contineencv 10% $ 242,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,665,100 7% $ 186,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 228,100 $ 228,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 40 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WIEDERSTEIN ROAD W. City Limits to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,165 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 22 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 66,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 78,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 165,600 4 10" Flex Base 10,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 190,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 10,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 42,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 10,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 10,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 108,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,810 SY $ 5.00 $ 24,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 16,200 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 40,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 24,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 161,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,047,600 Mobilization 5% $ 52,400 Contineencv 10% $ 110,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,210,000 7% $ 84,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 41 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate BAPTIST HEALTH DRIVE Ripps - Kreusler to Wiederstein Rd. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 52,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 6,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 109,800 4 10" Flex Base 7,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 126,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 7,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 28,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 7,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 7,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,860 LF $ 25.00 $ 71,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,380 SY $ 5.00 $ 11,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 11,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 28,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 17,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 114,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 742,800 Mobilization 5% $ 37,200 Contineencv 10% $ 78,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 858,000 7% $ 60,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 74,800 $ 74,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 42 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RIPPS- KREUSLER Baptist Health Dr. to End of Alignment Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,162 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 42,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 90,000 4 10" Flex Base 5,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 102,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,700 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 58,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 95,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 1,940 SY $ 5.00 $ 9,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 9,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 23,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 92,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 600,950 Mobilization 5% $ 30,100 Contineencv 10% $ 63,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 694,300 7% $ 48,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 43 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD FM 1518 to Oak St. Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,851 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 29 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 87,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 104,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 217,800 4 10" Flex Base 14,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 252,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 56,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,750 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,750 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 34,200 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 227,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,478,700 Mobilization 5% $ 74,000 Contineencv 10% $ 155,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,708,000 7% $ 119,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 44 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate MASKE ROAD Oak St. to Schertz Pkwy. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,646 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 47 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 141,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 168,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 19,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 354,600 4 10" Flex Base 22,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 410,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 22,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 91,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 22,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 22,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,300 LF $ 25.00 $ 232,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 260,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,330 SY $ 5.00 $ 51,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 34,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 86,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 52,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 346,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Major Crossing $ 500,000 $ 500,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,752,050 Mobilization 5% $ 137,700 Contineencv 10% $ 289,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,178,800 7% $ 222,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 243,900 $ 243,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 45 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: FM 1518 Maske Rd. to Oak St. Secondary Arterial = No. of Lanes: 3 -_ 6.864 70 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 38 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard; special section Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 207,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 248,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 29,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 522,000 4 10" Flex Base 33,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 604,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 33,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 134,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 33,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 33,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 13,730 LF $ 25.00 $ 343,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 11,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 570,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 11,440 SY $ 5.00 $ 57,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 54,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 136,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 81,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 544,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,636,650 Mobilization 5% $ 181,900 Contineencv 10% $ 381,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,200,500 7% $ 294,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 46 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 N. City Limits to Service Area 3 Limit Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 1,901 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 20 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 124,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 14,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 259,200 4 10" Flex Base 16,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 304,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 16,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 67,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 16,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 16,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 190,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 160,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,080 SY $ 5.00 $ 45,400 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 24,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 61,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 36,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 245,600 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 = $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,696,050 Mobilization 5% $ 84,900 Contineencv 10% $ 178,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 391,800 7% $ 27,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 17,100 $ 17,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 47 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Service Area 3 Limit to Schertz Pkwy. Extension Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 2,059 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 21 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 63,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,800 CY $ 20.00 $ 136,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 280,800 4 10" Flex Base 18,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 331,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 18,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 73,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 18,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 18,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,240 LF $ 25.00 $ 206,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 170,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 9,840 SY $ 5.00 $ 49,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 66,500 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20%_ $ 265,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,726,900 Mobilization 5% $ 86,400 Contineencv 10% $ 181,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 398,900 7% $ 27,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 48 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 78 /JOHN PETERSON BOULEVARD W. City Limits to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 9,557 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 96 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 288,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 31,200 CY $ 20.00 $ 624,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 72,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,301,400 4 10" Flex Base 85,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,530,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 85,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 340,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 85,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 85,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 38,230 LF $ 25.00 $ 955,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 795,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 35,040 SY $ 5.00 $ 175,200 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 121,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 304,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 182,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 1,218,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures 1/2 Bridge on Either End $ 2,835,000 $ 2,835,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 10,857,850 Mobilization 5% = $ 542,900 Contineencv 10% = $ 1,140,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 2,508,180 7% $ 175,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 49 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate FM 1518 Schertz Pkwy. Extension to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 6 Length (If): 21,595 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 130 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 68 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 216 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 648,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 70,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 1,408,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 163,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 2,937,600 4 10" Flex Base 192,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 3,456,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 192,000 SY $ 4.00 $ 768,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 192,000 SY $ 1.00 $ 192,000 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 86,390 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,159,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 36,000 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,800,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 103,180 SY $ 5.00 $ 515,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 277,800 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 694,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 416,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 2,777,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings - $ 300,000 $ 300,000 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,890,000 $ 1,890,000 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 20,241,050 Mobilization 5% $ 1,012,100 Contineencv 10% $ 2,125,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost City Contribution (TxDOT) 20% $ 4,675,700 7% $ 327,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 50 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCHAEFER ROAD W. City Limits to FM 1518 Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 2,534 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 26 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 78,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,600 CY $ 20.00 $ 92,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 194,400 4 10" Flex Base 12,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 223,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 49,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,070 LF $ 25.00 $ 126,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 140,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,630 SY $ 5.00 $ 28,150 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 18,900 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 47,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 28,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 188,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,228,000 Mobilization 5% $ 61,400 Contineencv 10% $ 129,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,418,400 7% $ 99,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 51 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate RAF- BURNETTE Schaefer Rd. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 2,904 - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 30 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 90,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 142,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 279,000 4 10" Flex Base 19,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 349,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 77,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 240,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,420 SY $ 5.00 $ 37,100 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 30,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 76,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 45,800 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 305,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ - 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,982,400 Mobilization 5% $ 99,200 Contineencv 10% $ 208,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,289,800 7% $ 160,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 108,900 $ 108,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 52 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to E. of Tates Dr. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 1,848 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 19 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 57,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 82,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 9,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 178,200 4 10" Flex Base 11,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 199,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 11,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 44,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 11,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 11,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,700 LF $ 25.00 $ 92,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 155,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 5,130 SY $ 5.00 $ 25,650 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 17,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 42,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 25,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 169,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,099,550 Mobilization 5% $ 55,000 Contineencv 10% $ 115,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,270,100 7% $ 88,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 13,900 $ 13,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 53 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD E. of Tates Dr. to W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 9,293 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 93 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 20,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 49,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 51,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 51,700 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 51,700 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 10,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 33,040 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 279,000 410,000 892,800 930,600 206,800 51,700 515,000 165,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 69,100 5% $ 172,600 3% $ 103,600 20% $ 690,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 1,120,000 $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 1,120,000 1,120,000 5,606,700 280,400 588,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 6,475,900 7% $ 453,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 69,700 $ 69,700 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 54 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate LOWER SEGUIN ROAD W. of Canopy Bend /Aranda Ln. to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 9,082 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 91 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 273,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 446,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 48,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 873,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,090,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 242,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 36,330 LF $ 25.00 $ 908,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 15,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 755,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 23,210 SY $ 5.00 $ 116,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,400 11 Traffic Control 5% = $ 238,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 143,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 953,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,194,900 Mobilization 5% $ 309,800 Contineencv 10% $ 650,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,155,200 7% $ 500,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 204,300 $ 204,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 55 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 792 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 8 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 77,400 4 10" Flex Base 5,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 95,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 21,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 3,170 LF $ 25.00 $ 79,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 65,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,660 SY $ 5.00 $ 23,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 21,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 13,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% _ $ 86,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 560,350 Mobilization 5% $ 28,100 Contineencv 10% $ 58,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 647,400 7% $ 45,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 71,300 $ 71,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 56 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (3) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 1,426 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 15 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 45,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 3,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 70,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 7,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 138,600 4 10" Flex Base 9,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 172,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 9,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 38,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 9,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 9,600 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 5,710 LF $ 25.00 $ 142,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 2,400 SY $ 50.00 $ 120,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 8,400 SY $ 5.00 $ 42,000 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 15,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 39,000 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 23,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 155,900 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,013,050 Mobilization 5% $ 50,700 Contineencv 10% $ 106,400 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,170,200 7% $ 81,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 128,300 $ 128,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 57 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector - No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,373 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 14 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 50,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 5,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 104,400 4 10" Flex Base 6,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 122,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 6,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 27,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 6,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 6,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,750 LF $ 25.00 $ 68,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 75,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 3,050 SY $ 5.00 $ 15,250 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 10,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 25,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 15,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 102,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 665,500 Mobilization 5% $ 33,300 Contineencv 10% $ 69,900 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 768,700 7% $ 53,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 72,100 $ 72,100 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 58 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S Connector (4) N. City Limits to S. City Limits Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 1,109 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 12 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 36,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,000 CY $ 20.00 $ 40,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 4,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 84,600 4 10" Flex Base 5,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 99,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 5,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 22,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 5,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 5,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,220 LF $ 25.00 $ 55,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 1,200 SY $ 50.00 $ 60,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 2,460 SY $ 5.00 $ 12,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 8,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 20,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 12,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 83,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 539,500 Mobilization 5% $ 27,000 Contineencv 10% $ 56,700 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 623,200 7% $ 43,600 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 58,200 $ 58,200 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 59 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD W. City Limits to Boeing Dr. Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 3,010 70 None 1 38 Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 31 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 93,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 108,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 12,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 230,400 4 10" Flex Base 14,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 266,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 14,800 SY $ 4.00 $ 59,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 14,800 SY $ 1.00 $ 14,800 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 6,020 LF $ 25.00 $ 150,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 165,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,690 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,450 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 22,500 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 56,100 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 33,700 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 224,200 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,457,250 Mobilization 5% $ 72,900 Contineencv 10% $ 153,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,683,300 7% $ 117,800 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 60 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate WEST WARE SEGUIN ROAD Boeing Dr. to N/S Connector (5) Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 3,538 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 36 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 108,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 128,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 15,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 270,000 4 10" Flex Base 17,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 311,400 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 17,300 SY $ 4.00 $ 69,200 6 TX -5 Geogrid 17,300 SY $ 1.00 $ 17,300 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 7,080 LF $ 25.00 $ 177,000 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 3,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 195,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 7,860 SY $ 5.00 $ 39,300 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 26,400 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 65,800 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 39,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 263,100 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,810,000 Mobilization 5% $ 90,500 Contineencv 10% $ 190,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,090,600 7% $ 146,300 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ $ - Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 61 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) Lower Seguin Rd. to W. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 5,808 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 177,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 210,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 24,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 442,800 4 10" Flex Base 28,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 511,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 28,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 113,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 28,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 28,400 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 11,620 LF $ 25.00 $ 290,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 325,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 12,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 64,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 43,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 108,200 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 64,900 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 432,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,812,150 Mobilization 5% $ 140,700 Contineencv 10% $ 295,300 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,248,200 7% $ 227,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 304,900 $ 304,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 62 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (S) W. Ware Seguin Rd. to E. Ware Seguin Rd. Functional Classification: Residential Collector No. of Lanes: 2 Length (If): 4,910 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: None Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Reconstruction of roadway to thoroughfare standard On- street bicycle facility (Pavement: 7' + T) Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 50 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 150,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 8,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 178,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 20,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 374,400 4 10" Flex Base 24,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 433,800 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 24,100 SY $ 4.00 $ 96,400 6 TX -5 Geogrid 24,100 SY $ 1.00 $ 24,100 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 9,830 LF $ 25.00 $ 245,750 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 5,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 275,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 10,910 SY $ 5.00 $ 54,550 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 36,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 91,600 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 55,000 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 366,400 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 2 Minor Crossings - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 2,581,700 Mobilization 5% = $ 129,100 Contineencv 10% $ 271,100 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,981,900 7% $ 208,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 36,800 $ 36,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 63 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (N /S) Weir Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Principal Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 8,765 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 120 - - - - Median Type: Raised Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 88 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 264,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 21,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 430,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 46,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 842,400 4 10" Flex Base 58,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,053,000 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 58,500 SY $ 4.00 $ 234,000 6 TX -5 Geogrid 58,500 SY $ 1.00 $ 58,500 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 35,060 LF $ 25.00 $ 876,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 14,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 730,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 51,610 SY $ 5.00 $ 258,050 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 95,000 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 237,400 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 142,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 949,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,170,550 Mobilization 5% $ 308,600 Contineencv 10% $ 648,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,127,200 7% $ 498,900 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 394,400 $ 394,400 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 64 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate TRAINER HALE ROAD (E /W) FM 1518 to Trainer Hale Rd. (N /S) Functional Classification: Secondary Arterial No. of Lanes: 4 Length (If): 7,973 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 - - - Median Type: Raised - - - - - - - Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 80 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 240,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 19,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 390,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 42,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 766,800 4 10" Flex Base 53,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 957,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 53,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 212,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 53,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 53,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 31,900 LF $ 25.00 $ 797,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 13,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 665,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,370 SY $ 5.00 $ 101,850 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 83,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 209,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 125,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 837,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures 1 Bridge $ 750,000 $ 750,000 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None $ - $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,190,350 Mobilization 5% $ 309,600 Contineencv 10% $ 650,000 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,150,000 7% $ 500,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 59,800 $ 59,800 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 65 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: WARE SEGUIN ROAD Graytown Rd. to N/S Connector (5) Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,128 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 72 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,700 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 38,100 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 39,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 39,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 39,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,900 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 25,340 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 216,000 314,000 685,800 712,800 158,400 39,600 395,000 126,700 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 53,000 5% $ 132,500 3% $ 79,500 20% $ 529,700 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,443,000 Mobilization 5% $ 172,200 Contineencv 10% $ 361,600 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,976,800 7% $ 278,400 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 481,100 $ 481,100 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 66 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: EAST WARE SEGUIN ROAD N/S Connector (5) to FM 1518 Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 7,445 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit 14 Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 75 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 39,800 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 41,400 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 41,400 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 41,400 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 8,300 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 26,470 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 225,000 328,000 716,400 745,200 165,600 41,400 415,000 132,350 Pct. Of Paving Item Cost 2% $ 55,400 5% $ 138,500 3% $ 83,100 20% $ 553,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 100,000 100,000 3,699,750 185,000 388,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 4,273,300 7% $ 299,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 167,500 $ 167,500 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 67 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate GRAYTOWN ROAD Boeing Dr. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 5,861 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 90 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 48 - - - - - Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard - - Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 59 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 12,900 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 31,300 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 32,600 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 32,600 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 32,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,840 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 177,000 258,000 563,400 586,800 130,400 32,600 325,000 104,200 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% - $ 43,600 5% $ 108,900 3% $ 65,400 20% $ 435,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures 3 Minor Crossings $ 300,000 - $ 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ 17 Traffic Signals None - $ $ 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ Mobilization 5% $ Contineencv 10% $ Item Cost 300,000 300,000 3,130,800 156,600 328,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,616,200 7% $ 253,100 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 131,900 $ 131,900 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 68 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate N/S CONNECTOR (6) Ware Seguin Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 2,482 - - Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 25 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 75,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,500 CY $ 20.00 $ 90,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 10,500 SY $ 18.00 $ 189,000 4 10" Flex Base 12,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 219,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 12,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 48,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 12,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 12,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 4,970 LF $ 25.00 $ 124,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 4,100 SY $ 50.00 $ 205,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 4,140 SY $ 5.00 $ 20,700 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 19,700 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 49,300 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 29,600 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 197,000 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None - - - $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None - - - $ $ - 18 Other None - - - $ $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 1,280,150 Mobilization 5% $ 64,100 Contineencv 10% $ 134,500 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 1,478,800 7% $ 103,500 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 130,300 $ 130,300 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 69 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate E/W CONNECTOR (8) IH 10 to E. City Limits Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 12,302 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: TWLTL Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 - - - - - - - Description: Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 124 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 372,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 22,100 CY $ 20.00 $ 442,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 52,000 SY $ 18.00 $ 936,000 4 10" Flex Base 60,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 1,083,600 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 60,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 240,800 6 TX -5 Geogrid 60,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 60,200 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 24,610 LF $ 25.00 $ 615,250 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 20,500 SY $ 50.00 $ 1,025,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 20,500 SY $ 5.00 $ 102,500 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 97,600 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 243,900 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 146,400 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 975,500 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ $ 15 Drainage Structures None - - $ $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 6,340,750 Mobilization 5% $ 317,100 Contineencv 10% $ 665,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 7,323,700 7% $ 512,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 645,900 $ 645,900 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 70 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate Functional Classification: Length (If): Right -of -Way Width (ft.): Median Type: Pavement Width (Edge to Edge) Description: BINZ- ENGLEMAN ROAD W. City Limits to Graytown Rd. Secondary Rural Arterial No. of Lanes: 3 6,864 90 Two -Way Left Turn Lane 48 Construction of new roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit $ Unit Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 69 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 18,400 CY $ 20.00 $ 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 36,700 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 10" Flex Base 38,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 38,200 SY $ 4.00 $ 6 TX -5 Geogrid 38,200 SY $ 1.00 $ 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $ 25.00 $ 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 7,600 SY $ 50.00 $ 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 24,410 SY $ 5.00 $ Item No. Item Description 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 11 Traffic Control 12 Erosion Control 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) Item Cost 207,000 368,000 660,600 687,600 152,800 38,200 380,000 122,050 Pct. Of Paving Item Description Item Cost 2% $ 52,400 5% $ 130,900 3% $ 78,500 20% $ 523,300 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None - - - $ - $ 15 Drainage Structures None - $ - $ - 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ - $ - 18 Other None - - - $ - $ - Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition I, II, & III Construction Subtotal: $ 3,401,350 Mobilization 5% - $ 170,100 Contineencv 10% $ 357,200 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 3,928,700 7% $ 275,000 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 463,300 $ 463,300 2017 Impact Fee Update Freese and Nichols, Inc. City of Schertz Updated: 612017 71 City of Schertz Impact Fee Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate SCENIC LAKE DRIVE Binz - Engleman Rd. to IH -10 Functional Classification: Commercial Collector A No. of Lanes: 3 Length (If): 4,066 Right -of -Way Width (ft.): 70 Median Type: Two -Way Left Turn Lane Pavement Width (Edge to Edge): 38 Description: Widening of roadway to thoroughfare standard Shared -Use Path bicycle facility Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Item Cost Unit Cost Pavement Markings & Signage Item Cost 1 Right of Way Preparation 41 STA $ 3,000.00 $ 123,000 2 Unclassified Street Excavation 7,300 CY $ 20.00 $ 146,000 3 3" HMAC (Type "D ") 17,200 SY $ 18.00 $ 309,600 4 10" Flex Base 19,900 SY $ 18.00 $ 358,200 5 6" Moisture Conditioned Subgrade 19,900 SY $ 4.00 $ 79,600 6 TX -5 Geogrid 19,900 SY $ 1.00 $ 19,900 7 6" Monolithic Concrete Curb & Gutter 8,140 LF $ 25.00 $ 203,500 8 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Ramps 6,800 SY $ 50.00 $ 340,000 9 Block Sodding and Topsoil 6,780 SY $ 5.00 $ 33,900 Item No. Item Description Pct. Of Paving Allowance Item Cost 10 Pavement Markings & Signage 2% $ 32,300 11 Traffic Control 5% $ 80,700 12 Erosion Control 3% $ 48,500 13 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 20% $ 322,800 Item No. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost 14 Landscaping /Illumination None $ - $ - 15 Drainage Structures 1 Minor Crossing $ 100,000 $ 100,000 16 Bridge Structures None $ - $ - 17 Traffic Signals None $ $ - 18 Other None $ $ Item Description Construction Engineering /Survey /Testing Right -of -Way Acquisition 2017 Impact Fee Update City of Schertz I, II, & 111 Construction Subtotal: $ 2,198,000 Mobilization 5% $ 109,900 Contineencv 10% $ 230,800 Notes Allowance Item Cost - $ 2,538,700 7% $ 177,700 Cost per sq. ft.: $ 0.75 $ 61,000 $ 61,000 Freese and Nichols, Inc. Updated: 612017 Appendix G: Land Use Assumptions Report LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Prepared for: City of Schertz 141611TWUll 1 I WAMAIZITI October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Land Use Assumptions Report Elements ....................................................... ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Roadway Service Areas ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 3.2 Data Format ............................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.0 HISTORICAL DATA ..................................................................................................... ..............................7 5.0 BASE YEAR DATA ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 5.1 Population Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 5.2 Population Growth Rate ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 5.3 Additional Growth Indicators ............................................................................. ..............................9 5.4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. .............................10 5.5 2017 Employment ................................................................................................ .............................11 6.0 TEN -YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................. ............................... 13 6.1 Population 2027 .................................................................................................... .............................14 6.2 Employment 2027 ................................................................................................ .............................17 7.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... .............................18 1.0 PURPOSE Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate impact fees. An initial step in the impact fee development process is the establishment of land use assumptions which address growth and development for a ten -year planning period (TLGC Section 395.001(5)) for the years 2017 -2027. These land use assumptions, which also include population and employment projections, will become the basis for the preparation of capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be updated (at least) every five years. This report, in conjunction with the roadway capital improvements plan, form the initial key components of an impact fee program. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. The purpose of this report is to formulate growth and development projections based upon assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity and timing of various future land uses within the community and to establish and document the methodology used for preparing the growth and land use assumptions. 1.1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assumptions. • Data Collection Zones and Service Area - Explanation of data collection zones (traffic analysis zones), and division of the city into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Historical Data — Information on historic population trends for Schertz and Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. • Base Year Data - Information on population, employment, and land use for Schertz as of 2015 for each roadway service area. • Ten -Year Growth Assumptions - Population and employment growth assumptions for ten years by impact fee service area. • Summary - Brief synopsis of the land use assumptions report. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY Based upon the growth assumptions and the capital improvements needed to support growth, it is possible to develop an impact fee structure which fairly allocates improvement costs to growth areas in relationship to their impact upon the entire infrastructure system. The data in this report has been formulated using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles for the preparation of impact fee systems in Texas. These land use assumptions and future growth projections take into consideration several factors influencing development patterns, including the following: • The character, type, density, and quantity of existing development • Anticipated future land use (City's Future Land Use Plan Map); • Availability of land for future expansion; • Current and historical growth trends of population and development within the city; • Location and configuration of vacant land; • Growth of employment per the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO); • Known or anticipated development projects within the city, as identified by City Staff. A series of work tasks were undertaken in the development of this report and are described below: 1. A kick -off meeting was held to describe the general methodological approach in the study. 2. Current data of population and housing was collected from the city and other acceptable sources to serve as a basis for future growth. 3. A base year (2017) estimate was developed using city building permit data, U.S. Census and periodic population, household occupancy and household size data, and employment data from AAMPO. 4. A growth rate was determined based upon an analysis of data from recent building permit data, Texas Development Water Board, past growth trends and anticipated development to occur over the next ten -year planning period. A compound annual growth rate of 3.5% is recommended for the planning period. 5. A ten -year projection (2027) was prepared using the recommended growth rate, Staff input, and consideration of the future allocation of population and employment in the AAMPO regional traffic forecast model. Finally, adjustments were then made to consider known or anticipated development activity within the ten -year planning period. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 6. Base and ten -year demographics were prepared for the various roadway service areas which, in turn, correlate with the current municipal limits of Schertz. 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE Service areas are required by State Law to define the area served by the Roadway Impact program. Chapter 395 requires that service areas be defined to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating needs. Roadway service areas are different from water /wastewater impact fee service areas in that roadway service areas can consider only current city limits but not the extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) while water /wastewater service areas can include both the city limits and ETJ. This is primarily because roadway networks are "open" systems to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided within water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. Chapter 395 stipulates that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum dimension, but must be limited to within the current city limits. Although the roadway service areas only recognize current municipal limits, an analysis including the ETJ was conducted in order to consider long -term coverage of the ultimate corporate boundaries relative to the six -mile maximum for the impact fee program. Figure 1 illustrates the roadway impact fee service areas within the ETJ. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 3.1 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Figure 2 illustrates the derived service area structure for roadway facilities. These service areas conform to the current city limits of Schertz. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.2 DATA FORMAT The existing database, as well as the future projections, was formulated according to the following format and categories: Service Area Correlates to the roadway service areas identified on the attached map. The city limits serve as the roadway service area boundary. Housing Units (2017) All living units including single - family, duplex, multi - family and group quarters existing at the middle of 2017. The number of existing housing units has been estimated for the base year (2017) population estimate. Housing Units (2027) Projected housing units by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projections). Population (2017) Existing estimated population for the base year (2017). Population (2027) Projected population by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projection). Employment (2017 -27) Employment data is aggregated to three employment sectors and include Basic, Retail and Service, as provided by AAM PO. These service sectors serve as the basis for nonresidential trip generation. The following details which types of businesses fall within each of the three sectors. Service -- Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as financial, insurance, government, and other professional and administrative offices. Retail -- Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Basic -- Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside the local economy; manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, warehousing and other industrial uses. AAMPO prepares employment estimates at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 Figure 3: Historic Population Growth; City of Schertz, Comal County and Guadalupe County, and Bexar County 35,000 30,0(}0 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,OW Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. HISTORICAL Schertz is located approximately 16 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio and lies in Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. Over the past several years, the Alamo Area region has experienced steady population and employment growth. Figure 3 depicts the historic population growth for the City of Schertz and Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties. Comal and Guadalupe Counties have maintained steady growth over the last 40 years with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) around 3.5 percent. Meanwhile, Bexar County, which encompasses the City of San Antonio has maintained a slower growth rate of 1.8 percent. The City of Schertz's population statistics begin in 1990. Between 1990 and 2010, population growth was steady with a CAGR between 3.5 and 4.5 percent. All indicators suggest that the city and regional population growth will continue in the near future. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 7 5.0 BASE YEAR T This section provides information and documents the data used to derive the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz. 5.1 POPULATION GROWTH One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single family building permit data from the city (Figure 4). The city estimates a 2016 population estimate of 39,453 residents in Schertz using the U.S. Census Intercensal population data of previous years. 5.2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions. Various sources were used to derive past growth rates (Table 1). These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent. Based upon this data, analysis Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Figure 4: Schertz Population Growth Trends Table 1: Growth Rates Source Growth U.S. Census (5- Year)* 3.4% U.S. Census (10- Year) ** 3.5% Future Growth Projection 3.5% *CAGR Based on 2011 -2016 Intercensal Data * *CAGR Based on 2006 -2016 Intercensal Data Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 8 Figure 5: Historic New Building Permits Source: City of Schertz Building Permits Table 2. Regional Growth Comparison Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 5.3 ADDITIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS Residential building permit data is also an indicator of recent growth trends. Cumulative single family residential building permits issued since 2000 are shown in Figure S. Annual single family residential building permits are shown to the left, depicting the overall trend in annual permits. Although building permits issued decreased after 2003, the issuance has remained steady over the last few of years. From 2011 to 2016, the trend shows a rate that will maintain permit issuance and growth in the future. Local population projections shown in Table 2 indicate that growth will continue in Schertz in the future. These population projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), City of Schertz Parks Plan and City of Schertz Population Projections indicate robust growth is likely and will continue for the next 35 years. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 9 5.4 EXISTING LAND USE In any evaluation and projection of future land use patterns, a documentation of existing conditions is essential. Analysis of existing land use patterns was prepared based on Schertz's 2013 Sector Plan and 2002 Comprehensive Plan, which includes current city limits and the ET1. This also serves to document the present physical condition of the city with regard to any infrastructure deficiencies that may exist. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 5.5 2017 EMPLOYMENT 2017 base employment was calculated using data from AAMPO. This information provided a breakout of employment by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for 2010. Figure 6 shows the location of the TAZs in each service area. For assumption purposes, these numbers were grown uniformly with specific adjustments made to TAZs to match estimates provided bythe city. It is important to note that the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, so adjustments were made based on the locations of existing land uses and upon the percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. AAMPO employment data was categorized as basic, retail, and service (see page 6 for a description of the employment categories). Using this data, the total employment could be found for basic, retail and service businesses in each service area (SA). Table 3 details 2017 employment within Schertz's city limits for each TAZ. Table 3. 2017 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 r � "s. ✓ �� f 1 0� 1144 / 114$ �` ✓" 770 # 1112 '4 1r 1121"' "° ` 5 i� �� 1143 tu'@ t � 1106, of ° ?71 F 1113 1457 E 11 2 '�� X y 7111$ 4 1 1145 ; 2a 1088 E` ' 772'x' 7 ?81 1123 4 tm�°�� 1167 i�� �,..,� 10 9. a 1124 y �. 1144 101` caw w J 524 W!" 1116 » ,„ . ` f ;,1125 1 95 kt� _ N COMNtNdCtv.9ERMCGr: grrPGR%4NITY 5 Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. 779*'° rzwr rxnrox:r.�xrxu+o` "0" �. rt1;1',,„� 1094 778 1^780 w ^ ' �� , .� S�bow y,,aar 1140 4 d' i Service Areas e as 2 Excludetl from IFEE dl 2(ETJ) Excluded from IFEE IETJ) r 7$5 0 1 2 3_ t Miles ;. S FN J08 N0 SRZ1535fi 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee , eArras,m:m GATE September s,l 7 6 SCALE 1:80,000 Traffic Analysis Zones Figure °RAFTS° Dare Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 12 6.0 TEN-YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. This rate corresponds with the historical average growth rate and the amount of growth expected over the next ten years. Table 4 details the ten -year population projection. Table 4. Year 2017 and 2027 Service Area Population and Dwelling Units Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 6.1 POPULATION 2027 The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902 (Figure 7). Figure 7: Ten -Year Population Growth Projection Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Table 5: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Avg. No. of Annual Permits: 581 Building permit calculations were derived using the U.S. Census information of 2.85 persons per household and base year population estimate. Between 2004 and 2014, the city issued an average of 377 building permits a year with the highest number of permits, 535, being issued in 2005 and the lowest number of permits, 254, issued in 2012. The city may average 581 new dwelling units a year over the next ten -year period (Table 5 and Figure 8). This average number is reflective of the type of construction which would likely occur based upon population projections and are accounting for both single - family and multi - family construction. Figure 8: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 An additional factor affecting overall population growth within Schertz is the construction of The Crossvine, a planned development in the southern sector of Schertz east of FM 1518. The master plan for this area includes between 2,300 and 2,400 single - family homes. The Crossvine Development The City has been reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan in the area to the west of the Crossvine. This area is south of Randolph Air Force Base and is impacted by restrictions based on the Air Impact Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) as outlined in the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The recently updated JBSA Randolph JLUS recommends significantly reduced residential densities for this area. Additionally, a lack of sewer capacity and concerns about allowing septic systems on half acre lots will likely reduce densities in this area from what is designated on the Future Land Use Plan. As sewer capacity is provided to the area to the east of FM 1518 pressure for corresponding increases in densities will likely continue to be experienced. Continuing residential development pressure in the northern part of Schertz, along IH -35 as well as pressure along IH -35 from New Braunfels in the north will impact the distribution of development, resulting in population and employment growth, around the City. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 6.2 EMPLOYMENT 2027 Employment data for the year 2027 was based upon data provided by AAMPO and the City of Schertz. Data from AAMPO in the years 2025 and 2040 was used to interpolate the projected year 2027. The data was then adjusted to match growth rate and allocation expectations by the City. The 2027 employment by TAZ as listed in Table 6. It is important to note that TAZs do not follow city limits. City Staff input was received to verify employment assumptions in each TAZ regarding known or anticipated development to occur, projections of future land use needs and employee projections within each TAZ located within city limits. The employment numbers in Table 6 show the derived employment of each TAZ within Schertz's municipal boundary. Over 5,000 jobs are forecasted to be added to the city over the ten -year planning period and represents an increase of 45 percent. This increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent. Table 6. 2025 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 7.0 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population growth is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 Table 7. Land Use Assumptions 2017 -2027 Summary Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 'Population Schertz Total 44;5 56,9f}2 16;a6 3.Si Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% Service Area 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Servi c Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units; Schertz Total 14,407 24;322 Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 5chertzTotal 11,201. 16,247 :5,046 3: Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Servi ceArea 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Servi ceArea 3 408 1,111 703 103% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Servi c Area 4 0 20 20 Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 Appendix H: Roadway Service Area Analysis Summary 3 LL E m � Q N E � R @ Q R � d' Q L V s .2 N M v s � N N O W y d o ro o � (V r c+l N H3 fR EA fA fA � I p a U a+ M rn W N M E a$ V N V I ° O U i ti ° s m o°rn � o M crno rn rn mp Q� N rn CD m N 3 U a N N v rn m i Z Ln M co � m V a > O O a � o O En En En O U a s �- m J a � s p 6 M m y � 3 Z a G N a p p z O V A M d C a p w j U L,5 � fA � sA 64 M O o o U a V O mOM 0 W U a N Z rn M m c6 rn 9 9 A o � o m ti N o cornF� u°i p Ie�� rn rn T � t0 C t V N N d Z N N � r . w � a U m a t a a a Q N N N'o N N 'o M N G F- o o � � U r Z y Z � , O 0 0 0 r r z Q LL Q U y m Z Z w O z Q Z v f U j U z d WO w W N lo ❑ W , O n r > m x m U Z U N� _ _ Q OU U O m In ZW F U m o _z 0 0 0 w w U Z~ W Q Z r p z z> r a z o z U w w 00<3: UQ > N 0 Z g U d z R o_ o_ o_ o o „ r _o g r r w W t W W W O Q O Z U 0 W > > > g U O > OU > Q Q Q Q> Q r U r x Q w z r o z o w r 0 0 0 2 O U U O Appendix 1: Debt Service and Credit Analysis CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 1 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 7,509,843 225,295 225,295 225,295 2 2019 - 216,911 216,911 216,911 3 2020 - 208,275 208,275 208,275 4 2021 7,509,843 424,675 424,675 424,675 5 2022 - 407,128 407,128 407,128 6 2023 - 389,055 389,055 389,055 7 2024 7,509,843 595,736 595,736 595,736 8 2025 - 568,178 568,178 568,178 9 2026 - 539,793 539,793 539,793 10 2027 - 510,556 510,556 510,556 22,529,530 4,085,603 4,085,603 4,085,603 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 7,509,843 30,039 30,039 30,039 2 2019 6,758,859 54,071 54,071 54,071 3 2020 6,007,875 72,094 72,094 72,094 4 2021 5,256,890 84,110 84,110 84,110 5 2022 4,505,906 90,118 90,118 90,118 6 2023 3,754,922 90,118 90,118 90,118 7 2024 3,003,937 84,110 84,110 84,110 8 2025 2,252,953 72,094 72,094 72,094 9 2026 1,501,969 54,071 54,071 54,071 10 2027 750,984 30,039 30,039 30,039 660,866 660,866 660,866 1 660,866 660,866 660,866 4 504,661 504,661 504,661 7 240,315 240,315 240,315 1,405,843 1,405,843 1,405,843 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 2,679,760 $ 2,679,760 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 1 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 2 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 11,148,888 334,467 334,467 334,467 2 2019 - 322,019 322,019 322,019 3 2020 - 309,198 309,198 309,198 4 2021 11,148,888 630,460 630,460 630,460 5 2022 - 604,411 604,411 604,411 6 2023 - 577,580 577,580 577,580 7 2024 11,148,888 884,411 884,411 884,411 8 2025 - 843,499 843,499 843,499 9 2026 - 801,360 801,360 801,360 10 2027 - 757,957 757,957 757,957 33,446,663 6,065,363 6,065,363 6,065,363 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 11,148,888 44,596 44,596 44,596 2 2019 10,033,999 80,272 80,272 80,272 3 2020 8,919,110 107,029 107,029 107,029 4 2021 7,804,221 124,868 124,868 124,868 5 2022 6,689,333 133,787 133,787 133,787 6 2023 5,574,444 133,787 133,787 133,787 7 2024 4,459,555 124,868 124,868 124,868 8 2025 3,344,666 107,029 107,029 107,029 9 2026 2,229,778 80,272 80,272 80,272 10 2027 1,114,889 44,596 44,596 44,596 981,102 981,102 981,102 1 981,102 981,102 981,102 4 749,205 749,205 749,205 7 356,764 356,764 356,764 2,087,072 2,087,072 2,087,072 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 3,978,291 $ 3,978,291 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 2 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 3 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 8,029,444 240,883 240,883 240,883 2 2019 - 231,919 231,919 231,919 3 2020 - 222,685 222,685 222,685 4 2021 8,029,444 454,058 454,058 454,058 5 2022 - 435,297 435,297 435,297 6 2023 - 415,974 415,974 415,974 7 2024 8,029,444 636,954 636,954 636,954 8 2025 - 607,489 607,489 607,489 9 2026 - 577,141 577,141 577,141 10 2027 - 545,881 545,881 545,881 24,088,331 4,368,282 4,368,282 4,368,282 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 8,029,444 32,118 32,118 32,118 2 2019 7,226,499 57,812 57,812 57,812 3 2020 6,423,555 77,083 77,083 77,083 4 2021 5,620,611 89,930 89,930 89,930 5 2022 4,817,666 96,353 96,353 96,353 6 2023 4,014,722 96,353 96,353 96,353 7 2024 3,211,777 89,930 89,930 89,930 8 2025 2,408,833 77,083 77,083 77,083 9 2026 1,605,889 57,812 57,812 57,812 10 2027 802,944 32,118 32,118 32,118 706,591 706,591 706,591 1 706,591 706,591 706,591 4 539,579 539,579 539,579 7 256,942 256,942 256,942 1,503,112 1,503,112 1,503,112 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 2,865,171 $ 2,865,171 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 3 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. CITY OF SCHERTZ SCHEDULE OF PROJECTED DEBT ISSUANCE AND NET INTEREST COST [1] ROADWAY AREA 4 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 TO 2027 TOTAL CIP INTEREST EXPENSE GROWTH YEAR YEAR DEBT ISSUE TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL 100.00% SERIES ALL SERIES 1 2018 116,545 3,496 3,496 3,496 2 2019 - 3,366 3,366 3,366 3 2020 - 3,232 3,232 3,232 4 2021 116,545 6,591 6,591 6,591 5 2022 - 6,318 6,318 6,318 6 2023 - 6,038 6,038 6,038 7 2024 116,545 9,245 9,245 9,245 8 2025 - 8,818 8,818 8,818 9 2026 - 8,377 8,377 8,377 10 2027 - 7,923 7,923 7,923 349,635 63,405 63,405 63,405 INTEREST REVENUE GROWTH AVG BAL TEN YEAR PERIOD 2018 -2027 RELATED 1 2018 116,545 466 466 466 2 2019 104,891 839 839 839 3 2020 93,236 1,119 1,119 1,119 4 2021 81,582 1,305 1,305 1,305 5 2022 69,927 1,399 1,399 1,399 6 2023 58,273 1,399 1,399 1,399 7 2024 46,618 1,305 1,305 1,305 8 2025 34,964 1,119 1,119 1,119 9 2026 23,309 839 839 839 10 2027 11,655 466 466 466 10,256 10,256 10,256 1 10,256 10,256 10,256 4 7,832 7,832 7,832 7 3,729 3,729 3,729 21,817 21,817 21,817 NET INTEREST EXPENSE $ 41,588 $ 41,588 [1] Assumptions: 1) Total Area 4 CIP cost is financed by 3 bond series, 2) interest rate on bond series is 3 %, 3) bond proceeds are fully expended equally over the 10 year period, and 4) the investment rate of return is capped at 4% at the end of the 10 year period, assuming 0.4% annual growth rate. City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit Texas Local Government Code Section 395 "Financing Capital Improvements Required by New Development in Municipalities, Counties, and Certain Other Local Governments" requires the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014, Texas Local Government Code states: "... (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (7) A plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan...." City of Schertz street CIP improvements are funded from long term debt. The portion of ad valorem tax generated by the new service units during the program period is estimated to equal the interest and sinking (I &S) tax levy to fund ten years of debt service payments for the long term debt that are issued to fund the growth related street CIP projects. To estimate the growth related street CIP debt service amount, the FY17 -18 annual budgeted AS tax levy is adjusted proportionately for voter approved street CIP projects. The figures used in this calculation are as follows: Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt 1 Total voter appro\/ed tax supported debt obligations [1] $68,375,000 2 Voter approved amount for streets, sidewalks & drainage [1] $27,000,000 3 Percentage of voter approved debt allocated for streets, sidewalks & drainage Line 2 / Line 1 39.49% 4 2018 I &S Fund tax levy 6,030,353 5 Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt (Line 3 X Line 4) $2,381,273 [1] Source: City of Schertz 2014 -15 Debt Information Summary The maximum impact fee is expressed in dollars per vehicle -mile. The RWIF credit per vehicle -mile is calculated by dividing the annual portion of estimated property tax by the current total vehicle -mile of demand: Roadway Impact Fee Credit Per Vehicle -Mile (Veh -Mi 1 Annual Amount of Ad Valorem Tax Generated by New Development Used for the Payment of Debt $2,381,273 2 Current Veh -Mi of Demand 17,181 3 RWIF Credit per Veh -Mi Line 1 / Line 2 $138.60 The $138.60 credit per vehicle mile is multiplied times the ten -year cumulative total of vehicle miles of demand by service area to equal the CIP credit by service area. Prepared by. Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 1 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit The cumulative total vehicle -miles by service area are derived from the total projected ten year demand of vehicle miles by service area applied equally over the ten -year period. Service Area 1 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri Yd Annual Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 1,046 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 2,092 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 3,138 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 41184 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 5,231 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 6,277 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 7,323 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 8,369 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,046 1,791 9,415 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,0461 1,791 1 10,461 17,905 TOTAL 10,4611 1 17,905 57,536 Service Area 2 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yd Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 1,791 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 3,581 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 5,372 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 7,162 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 8,953 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 10,743 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 12,534 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 14,324 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 16,115 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,791 17,905 TOTAL 1 17,905 98,478 Service Area 3 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri Annual Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 1,492 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 2,984 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 4,475 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 5,967 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 7,459 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 8,951 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 10,443 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 11,934 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 1,492 13,426 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 11492 14,918 TOTAL 14,9181 1 2,049 Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 2 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit Service Area 4 Ten Year Cumulative Total of Veh -Mi of New Demand Yri (B) Annual (D) Cumulative 1 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Annual 12 2 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Demand 25 3 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Area 37 4 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Service Area 50 5 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 $138.60 62 6 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 98,478 74 7 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 1,492 87 8 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 124 99 9 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 Totals 112 10 Vehicle Miles of New Demand 12 $33,090,057 124 to Growth TOTAL 1241 1 682 The $138.60 credit per vehicle mile is multiplied times the ten year cumulative total of vehicle miles of demand by service area to equal the CIP credit by service area: City of Schertz 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Study Update New Roadway Vehicle -Miles and Credit per Service Area - 10 Year Impact Fee Period (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) Projected 10yr Annual 10 YR Cumulative $ PER CIP Credit Service Demand Demand Demand VEH -MI by Area (veh- miles) (veh - miles) Total CREDIT Service Area 1 10,461 1,046 57,536 $138.60 $7,974,490 2 17,905 1,791 98,478 $138.60 $13,649,051 3 14,918 1,492 82,049 $138.60 $11,371,991 4 124 12 682 $138.60 $94,525 Totals 43,408 4,341 238,745 $138.60 $33,090,057 Calculation of the maximum impact fee after the credit by service area (column 1) is illustrated in the following table: City of Schertz 2017 Impact Fee Study Update Calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee After the the Credit b Service Area (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (1) (C) X (D) (F) -(E) (F) /(A) (G) /(A) Cost Projected 10yr Annual Cumulative $ PER CIP Credit Cost Attributable Base Maximum Service Demand Demand Demand VEH -MI by Attributable to Growth Maximum Impact Fee Area veh-miles) (veh-miles) Total CREDIT Service Area to Growth Less Credit Impact Fee after Credit 1 10,461 1,046 57,536 $138.60 $7,974,490 25,209,290 $17,234,800 $2,409.84 $1,647.53 2 17,905 1,791 98,478 $138.60 $13,649,051 37,424,954 $23,775,903 $2,090.20 $1,327.89 3 14,918 1,492 82,049 $138.60 $11,371,991 26,953,502 $15,581,511 $1,806.78 $1,044.48 4 124 12 682 $138.60 $94,525 391,223 $296,698 $3,155.02 $2,392.72 Totals 43,408 4,341 238,745 $138.60 $33,090,057 89,978,969 $56,888,912 $2,072.87 $1,310.56 The CIP credit by service area (column E) is subtracted from the cost attributable to growth by service area (column F) to result in the cost attributable to growth less credit by service area (column G). Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 3 of 4 City of Schertz, Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Update Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit The maximum impact fee per vehicle -mile after the credit per service area (column 1) is calculated by dividing the cost attributable to growth less credit (column G) divided by the projected 10 year demand (Column A). A comparison to the base maximum impact fee and 50% reduction follows: City of Schertz 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Study Update Comparison of the Base Maximum Impact Fee to the 50% Maximum Impact Fee and Maximum Impact fee after the Credit by Service Area (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 50% Alternative After the Credit Base Fee per Maximum Fee Maximum % of Base Maximum Fee Service Maximum Service Unit per Single Family Impact Fee after Maximum per Single Family Area I Impact Fee @ 50% Discount 1 Dwelling Unit 1 the Credit Impact Fee Dwelling Unit 1 1 $2,409.84 $1,204.92 $4,060.58 $1,647.53 68.37% $5,552.18 2 $2,090.20 $1,045.10 $3,521.99 $1,327.89 63.53% $4,474.99 3 $1,806.78 $903.39 $3,044.42 $1,044.48 57.81% $3,519.90 4 $3,155.02 $1,577.51 $5,316.21 $2,392.72 75.84% $8,063.47 [11 Based on service unit equivalency of 3.37 veh -miles per development unit. Prepared by: Eddie Peacock, Consultant Eddie Peacock, PLLC Page 4 of 4 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Prepared for: City of Schertz 141611TWUll 1 I WAMAIZITI October 2017 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 2711 North Haskell Avenue, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.1 Land Use Assumptions Report Elements ....................................................... ..............................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................... ..............................4 3.1 Roadway Service Areas ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 3.2 Data Format ............................................................................................................... ..............................6 4.0 HISTORICAL DATA ..................................................................................................... ..............................7 5.0 BASE YEAR DATA ........................................................................................................ ..............................8 5.1 Population Growth ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 5.2 Population Growth Rate ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 5.3 Additional Growth Indicators ............................................................................. ..............................9 5.4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. .............................10 5.5 2017 Employment ................................................................................................ .............................11 6.0 TEN -YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................. ............................... 13 6.1 Population 2027 .................................................................................................... .............................14 6.2 Employment 2027 ................................................................................................ .............................17 7.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... .............................18 1.0 PURPOSE Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code prescribes the process by which cities in Texas must formulate impact fees. An initial step in the impact fee development process is the establishment of land use assumptions which address growth and development for a ten -year planning period (TLGC Section 395.001(5)) for the years 2017 -2027. These land use assumptions, which also include population and employment projections, will become the basis for the preparation of capital improvement plans for roadway facilities. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be updated (at least) every five years. This report, in conjunction with the roadway capital improvements plan, form the initial key components of an impact fee program. To assist the City of Schertz in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. The purpose of this report is to formulate growth and development projections based upon assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity and timing of various future land uses within the community and to establish and document the methodology used for preparing the growth and land use assumptions. 1.1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT ELEMENTS This report contains the following components: • Methodology - Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assumptions. • Data Collection Zones and Service Area - Explanation of data collection zones (traffic analysis zones), and division of the city into impact fee service areas for roadway facilities. • Historical Data — Information on historic population trends for Schertz and Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. • Base Year Data - Information on population, employment, and land use for Schertz as of 2015 for each roadway service area. • Ten -Year Growth Assumptions - Population and employment growth assumptions for ten years by impact fee service area. • Summary - Brief synopsis of the land use assumptions report. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY Based upon the growth assumptions and the capital improvements needed to support growth, it is possible to develop an impact fee structure which fairly allocates improvement costs to growth areas in relationship to their impact upon the entire infrastructure system. The data in this report has been formulated using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles for the preparation of impact fee systems in Texas. These land use assumptions and future growth projections take into consideration several factors influencing development patterns, including the following: • The character, type, density, and quantity of existing development • Anticipated future land use (City's Future Land Use Plan Map); • Availability of land for future expansion; • Current and historical growth trends of population and development within the city; • Location and configuration of vacant land; • Growth of employment per the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( AAMPO); • Known or anticipated development projects within the city, as identified by City Staff. A series of work tasks were undertaken in the development of this report and are described below: 1. A kick -off meeting was held to describe the general methodological approach in the study. 2. Current data of population and housing was collected from the city and other acceptable sources to serve as a basis for future growth. 3. A base year (2017) estimate was developed using city building permit data, U.S. Census and periodic population, household occupancy and household size data, and employment data from AAMPO. 4. A growth rate was determined based upon an analysis of data from recent building permit data, Texas Development Water Board, past growth trends and anticipated development to occur over the next ten -year planning period. A compound annual growth rate of 3.5% is recommended for the planning period. 5. A ten -year projection (2027) was prepared using the recommended growth rate, Staff input, and consideration of the future allocation of population and employment in the AAMPO regional traffic forecast model. Finally, adjustments were then made to consider known or anticipated development activity within the ten -year planning period. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 3 6. Base and ten -year demographics were prepared for the various roadway service areas which, in turn, correlate with the current municipal limits of Schertz. 3.0 ROADWAY SERVICE Service areas are required by State Law to define the area served by the Roadway Impact program. Chapter 395 requires that service areas be defined to ensure that facility improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating needs. Roadway service areas are different from water /wastewater impact fee service areas in that roadway service areas can consider only current city limits but not the extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) while water /wastewater service areas can include both the city limits and ETJ. This is primarily because roadway networks are "open" systems to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is provided within water and wastewater systems. The result is that new development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital improvements within that service area. Chapter 395 stipulates that roadway service areas be limited to a six -mile maximum dimension, but must be limited to within the current city limits. Although the roadway service areas only recognize current municipal limits, an analysis including the ETJ was conducted in order to consider long -term coverage of the ultimate corporate boundaries relative to the six -mile maximum for the impact fee program. Figure 1 illustrates the roadway impact fee service areas within the ETJ. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 4 3.1 ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS Figure 2 illustrates the derived service area structure for roadway facilities. These service areas conform to the current city limits of Schertz. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 5 3.2 DATA FORMAT The existing database, as well as the future projections, was formulated according to the following format and categories: Service Area Correlates to the roadway service areas identified on the attached map. The city limits serve as the roadway service area boundary. Housing Units (2017) All living units including single - family, duplex, multi - family and group quarters existing at the middle of 2017. The number of existing housing units has been estimated for the base year (2017) population estimate. Housing Units (2027) Projected housing units by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projections). Population (2017) Existing estimated population for the base year (2017). Population (2027) Projected population by service zone for the year 2027 (ten -year growth projection). Employment (2017 -27) Employment data is aggregated to three employment sectors and include Basic, Retail and Service, as provided by AAM PO. These service sectors serve as the basis for nonresidential trip generation. The following details which types of businesses fall within each of the three sectors. Service -- Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as financial, insurance, government, and other professional and administrative offices. Retail -- Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Basic -- Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside the local economy; manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale trade, warehousing and other industrial uses. AAMPO prepares employment estimates at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, but some adjustments were needed to consider areas within the limits of the city. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 6 Figure 3: Historic Population Growth; City of Schertz, Comal County and Guadalupe County, and Bexar County 35,000 30,0(}0 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,OW Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. HISTORICAL Schertz is located approximately 16 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio and lies in Guadalupe, Bexar, and Comal Counties. Over the past several years, the Alamo Area region has experienced steady population and employment growth. Figure 3 depicts the historic population growth for the City of Schertz and Comal, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties. Comal and Guadalupe Counties have maintained steady growth over the last 40 years with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) around 3.5 percent. Meanwhile, Bexar County, which encompasses the City of San Antonio has maintained a slower growth rate of 1.8 percent. The City of Schertz's population statistics begin in 1990. Between 1990 and 2010, population growth was steady with a CAGR between 3.5 and 4.5 percent. All indicators suggest that the city and regional population growth will continue in the near future. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 7 5.0 BASE YEAR T This section provides information and documents the data used to derive the 2017 base year population estimate for the City of Schertz. 5.1 POPULATION GROWTH One method of predicting future growth is looking at past growth. Schertz has experienced steady growth over the past decade. Past growth trends from the U.S. Census were examined in conjunction with single family building permit data from the city (Figure 4). The city estimates a 2016 population estimate of 39,453 residents in Schertz using the U.S. Census Intercensal population data of previous years. 5.2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) allows for a general assessment of growth, considering periodic increases and decreases in residential population growth coinciding with changing economic conditions. Various sources were used to derive past growth rates (Table 1). These sources indicated rates of growth between 2.6 and 4.1 percent. Based upon this data, analysis Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Figure 4: Schertz Population Growth Trends Table 1: Growth Rates Source Growth U.S. Census (5- Year)* 3.4% U.S. Census (10- Year) ** 3.5% Future Growth Projection 3.5% *CAGR Based on 2011 -2016 Intercensal Data * *CAGR Based on 2006 -2016 Intercensal Data Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 8 Figure 5: Historic New Building Permits Source: City of Schertz Building Permits Table 2. Regional Growth Comparison Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. of 10 -year forecasts, and City Staff input, a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate was determined to be an appropriate assumption for the 10 -year study period. It is believed to account for periods of rapid and stable growth expected to occur in the future. This rate was recommended by the Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on May 13, 2015. 5.3 ADDITIONAL GROWTH INDICATORS Residential building permit data is also an indicator of recent growth trends. Cumulative single family residential building permits issued since 2000 are shown in Figure S. Annual single family residential building permits are shown to the left, depicting the overall trend in annual permits. Although building permits issued decreased after 2003, the issuance has remained steady over the last few of years. From 2011 to 2016, the trend shows a rate that will maintain permit issuance and growth in the future. Local population projections shown in Table 2 indicate that growth will continue in Schertz in the future. These population projections from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), City of Schertz Parks Plan and City of Schertz Population Projections indicate robust growth is likely and will continue for the next 35 years. Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 9 5.4 EXISTING LAND USE In any evaluation and projection of future land use patterns, a documentation of existing conditions is essential. Analysis of existing land use patterns was prepared based on Schertz's 2013 Sector Plan and 2002 Comprehensive Plan, which includes current city limits and the ET1. This also serves to document the present physical condition of the city with regard to any infrastructure deficiencies that may exist. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 10 5.5 2017 EMPLOYMENT 2017 base employment was calculated using data from AAMPO. This information provided a breakout of employment by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for 2010. Figure 6 shows the location of the TAZs in each service area. For assumption purposes, these numbers were grown uniformly with specific adjustments made to TAZs to match estimates provided bythe city. It is important to note that the TAZs do not follow city limits in some locations, so adjustments were made based on the locations of existing land uses and upon the percentage of each TAZ located within city limits. AAMPO employment data was categorized as basic, retail, and service (see page 6 for a description of the employment categories). Using this data, the total employment could be found for basic, retail and service businesses in each service area (SA). Table 3 details 2017 employment within Schertz's city limits for each TAZ. Table 3. 2017 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 11 r � "s. ✓ �� f 1 0� 1144 / 114$ �` ✓" 770 # 1112 '4 1r 1121"' "° ` 5 i� �� 1143 tu'@ t � 1106, of ° ?71 F 1113 1457 E 11 2 '�� X y 7111$ 4 1 1145 ; 2a 1088 E` ' 772'x' 7 ?81 1123 4 tm�°�� 1167 i�� �,..,� 10 9. a 1124 y �. 1144 101` caw w J 524 W!" 1116 » ,„ . ` f ;,1125 1 95 kt� _ N COMNtNdCtv.9ERMCGr: grrPGR%4NITY 5 Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. 779*'° rzwr rxnrox:r.�xrxu+o` "0" �. rt1;1',,„� 1094 778 1^780 w ^ ' �� , .� S�bow y,,aar 1140 4 d' i Service Areas e as 2 Excludetl from IFEE dl 2(ETJ) Excluded from IFEE IETJ) r 7$5 0 1 2 3_ t Miles ;. S FN J08 N0 SRZ1535fi 2017 Schertz Roadway Impact Fee , eArras,m:m GATE September s,l 7 6 SCALE 1:80,000 Traffic Analysis Zones Figure °RAFTS° Dare Roadway Impact Fee Study Page 12 6.0 TEN-YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS Projected growth has been characterized in two forms: population and employment. A series of assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable growth rates for population and employment. The following assumptions have been made as a basis from which ten -year projections could be initiated. • Future land uses will occur based on similar trends of the past and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan Map, • The city will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth, • School facilities will accommodate increases in population, and • Densities will be as projected in the Sector Plans. The ten -year projections are based upon the 3.5 percent growth rate discussed earlier and considers past trends of the city. This rate corresponds with the historical average growth rate and the amount of growth expected over the next ten years. Table 4 details the ten -year population projection. Table 4. Year 2017 and 2027 Service Area Population and Dwelling Units Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 13 6.1 POPULATION 2027 The city has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The city's 2000 population stood at just over 18,000 residents. By the end of the decade, Schertz's population neared 32,000 in 2010 and a current 2017 estimate of 40,339. Although population estimates from the ETJ cannot be taken into account when calculating land use assumptions, the growing population within the ETJ should be monitored as the city plans its future. Using a 3.5 percent compound annual growth rate, the projected 2027 population for the city is 56,902 (Figure 7). Figure 7: Ten -Year Population Growth Projection Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 14 Table 5: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Avg. No. of Annual Permits: 581 Building permit calculations were derived using the U.S. Census information of 2.85 persons per household and base year population estimate. Between 2004 and 2014, the city issued an average of 377 building permits a year with the highest number of permits, 535, being issued in 2005 and the lowest number of permits, 254, issued in 2012. The city may average 581 new dwelling units a year over the next ten -year period (Table 5 and Figure 8). This average number is reflective of the type of construction which would likely occur based upon population projections and are accounting for both single - family and multi - family construction. Figure 8: Projected Dwelling Unit Estimations Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 15 An additional factor affecting overall population growth within Schertz is the construction of The Crossvine, a planned development in the southern sector of Schertz east of FM 1518. The master plan for this area includes between 2,300 and 2,400 single - family homes. The Crossvine Development The City has been reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan in the area to the west of the Crossvine. This area is south of Randolph Air Force Base and is impacted by restrictions based on the Air Impact Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) as outlined in the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The recently updated JBSA Randolph JLUS recommends significantly reduced residential densities for this area. Additionally, a lack of sewer capacity and concerns about allowing septic systems on half acre lots will likely reduce densities in this area from what is designated on the Future Land Use Plan. As sewer capacity is provided to the area to the east of FM 1518 pressure for corresponding increases in densities will likely continue to be experienced. Continuing residential development pressure in the northern part of Schertz, along IH -35 as well as pressure along IH -35 from New Braunfels in the north will impact the distribution of development, resulting in population and employment growth, around the City. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 16 6.2 EMPLOYMENT 2027 Employment data for the year 2027 was based upon data provided by AAMPO and the City of Schertz. Data from AAMPO in the years 2025 and 2040 was used to interpolate the projected year 2027. The data was then adjusted to match growth rate and allocation expectations by the City. The 2027 employment by TAZ as listed in Table 6. It is important to note that TAZs do not follow city limits. City Staff input was received to verify employment assumptions in each TAZ regarding known or anticipated development to occur, projections of future land use needs and employee projections within each TAZ located within city limits. The employment numbers in Table 6 show the derived employment of each TAZ within Schertz's municipal boundary. Over 5,000 jobs are forecasted to be added to the city over the ten -year planning period and represents an increase of 45 percent. This increase corresponds to an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent. Table 6. 2025 Employment by Service Area Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 17 7.0 SUMMARY • The existing 2017 population for Schertz stands at approximately 40,339 persons, with an existing estimated employment of 11,201 jobs. • An average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent was used to calculate the Schertz ten -year growth projections. This growth rate is based upon the State Water Board Projections, the Parks Plan, City forecasts, historical U.S. Census data, as well as Building Permit information received from the City. • Ten -year (2027) population growth is forecasted to be 56,902 persons, with an employment of 16,247 jobs. Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 18 Table 7. Land Use Assumptions 2017 -2027 Summary Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 'Population Schertz Total 44;5 56,9f}2 16;a6 3.Si Service Area 1 9,239 12,211 2,972 2.8% Service Area 2 28,280 32,169 3,889 1.3% Service Area 3 2,809 12,454 9,645 16.1% Servi c Area 4 11 68 57 20.0% Dwelling Units; Schertz Total 14,407 24;322 Service Area 1 3,300 4,361 1,061 2.8% Service Area 2 10,100 11,489 1,389 1.3% Service Area 3 1,003 4,448 3,445 16.1% Service Area 4 4 24 20 20.0% Employment 5chertzTotal 11,201. 16,247 :5,046 3: Service Area 1 2,206 3,812 1,606 5.6% Basic 1,120 1,814 694 4.9% Reta i 1 468 785 317 5.3% Service 618 1,213 595 7.0% Servi ceArea 2 8,587 11,304 2,717 2.8% Basic 3,287 5,038 1,751 4.4% Reta i 1 2,449 2,996 547 2.0% Service 2,851 3,270 419 1.4% Servi ceArea 3 408 1,111 703 103% Basic 232 597 365 9.9% Reta i 1 108 340 232 12.2% Service 68 174 106 9.9% Servi c Area 4 0 20 20 Basic 0 0 0 - Reta i 1 0 0 0 - Service 0 20 20 - Land Use Assumptions Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 19 Roadway Impact Fee Study Land Use Assumptions Freese and Nichols, Inc. Page 20 ffit March 5, 2018 The Honorable Michael Carpenter, Mayor and Members of the Schertz City Council City of Schertz 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, TX 78154 :Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Recommendations Dear Mayor Carpenter and Members of the City Council: The City of Schertz Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has been working with City staff and the consulting firm of Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI), since October, 2017, on the guiding documents and policy considerations for a Roadway Impact Fee program to potentially be implemented by the City. In accordance with Texas Local Government Code (TLGC) Chapter 395, the CIAC is tasked with providing a recommendation to City Council regarding Roadway Impact Fees. After consideration of the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Facilities, the Roadway Impact Fee Study Report prepared by FNI, and input gathered and presented by staff from City Boards and Commissions and focus groups from the development and business community, the CIAC recommends the following: ® Adoption of the Roadway Impact Fee cost per service unit for residential development of $600 during the first two years of the program, $800 during the third year, $900 during the fourth year, and $1,000 during the fifth year. Based on those fee amounts, the collection rate for a single family dwelling unit will be $2,022 during years one and two, and $2,696, $3,033, and $3,370 during years three, four, and five, respectively. a Adoption of the Roadway Impact Fee cost per service unit for non - residential development of $100 during the first three years and increasing to $175 for years four and five. The CIAC further recommends the following phase -in schedule for the assessment of the proposed fees: ® Development on a lot for which a plat has been recorded prior to adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 18 months after the adoption of the impact fee. 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 210- 619 -1000 ® Development on a lot for which a preliminary plat was approved prior to adoption . of the ordinance will not be charged an impact fee for any complete building permit application submitted within 1 year after the adoption of the impact fee. ® Any other development will be charged an impact fee for a complete building permit application submitted after the date of adoption of the ordinance. The CIAC agreed that the Impact Fee Program as described above is necessary to assist in the funding for critical roadway projects needed to accommodate future growth, while maintaining the character and quality of life envisioned by City residents in the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, f $.< Michael Dahle Chairman, CIAO cc:Brian James, Acting City Manager 10 Commercial Place, Bldg #2 Schertz, Texas 78154 210 -619 -1823 Special Meeting of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Minutes February 7, 2018 The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee convened on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Bldg. 4 Schertz, Texas. Members Present: Staff Present: Michael Dahle Brian James, Acting City Manager Richard Braud Lesa Wood, Director of Planning and Community Ken Greenwald Development Gordon Rae Kathy Woodlee, City Engineer LaDonna Bacon Daniel Santee, City Attorney Tim Brown Dr. Mark Penshorn Members Absent: Glen Outlaw Ernest Evans 1. Call to order by each governing Mr. Dahle called the CIAC meeting to order at 6:00 2 A. Hold a public hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of a Roadway Impact Fee. Kathy Woodlee, City Engineer, gave a presentation on the background and purpose for the Roadway Impact Fee Study, and the Impact fee Cost per Service Unit Calculations. Mrs. Woodlee presented the explanation for the special scheduled meeting as the need to discuss the policy consideration options to have a possible action to approve recommendation to City Council The special consideration options are needed to establish the actual impact fees to be charged. Mrs. Woodlee indicated to the Committee the special policy considerations include: if the Road way Impact Fee should be the same rate city -wide, vs. different fee in different service areas; if there should be different fee rates for residential vs. non - residential; if there should be a cap established for the maximum total fee charged; if there should be incremental fee increases; and if there should be a phase -in of fee imposition. Mrs. Woodlee indicated that Staff recommends approval of same rate City -Wide; adoption of different fee rates for residential vs. non - residential development; no cap for maximum fee collected for development; adoption of incremental increases to residential fees; and no incremental increases over the first 5 years for non - residential fees. Additionally, Staff recommends the establishment of a phase -in plan so that development on property for which a plat is recorded prior to adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for building permits submitted within 18 months after adoption and development on a property for which a preliminary plat is approved prior to the adoption of the roadway impact fee ordinance will not be charged the fee for building permits submitted within 12 months after adoption. Mrs. Woodlee provided exhibits in her presentation including comparison of roadway impact fees and other costs of development among Schertz and other municipalities. She also presented some potential fee generation based on the staff recommended rates per service unit and typical annual development distributed among the service areas. Mrs. Woodlee explained the role of the CIAC and the need for a written recommendation regarding the rate(s) and policy considerations to City Council from the CIAC. Mr. Dahle opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 P.M. There were no residents who spoke. Mr. Dahle closed the public hearing at 6:21 P.M. There was a discussion between the Committee and staff regarding the Roadway Impact Fee Study, and the special policy considerations regarding fee rates for residential vs. non- residential, not establishing a cap for maximum fee, incremental increases, and phase -in of fee imposition. There was a brief discussion regarding water and sewer impact fee and the fact that the City is charging the maximum allowable rates for those. Committee and staff had a discussion changing the staff - recommended service unit rate for non - residential to to incorporate an incremental increase from $100 to $175 in the fourth and fifth years. Mr. James brought up the discussion regarding recommendation for approval on the vehicle mile credit basis for roads constructed. Mr. James briefly discussed the rough proportionality mechanism. Mr. Brand motioned to approve recommendation that we adopt r adjustment to non - residential fees in( year. Mr. Greenwald seconded the n 3. Adjournment. Chairman Dahle adjourned the CIA1 the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee makes a impact fee amounts as recommended by staff with the from $100 per service unit to $175 per service unit in the fourth he vote was 7 -0, motion carried. =21100551 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTIES TIES OF BEXAR, COMAL, AND GUADALUPE r I E, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, on the 91h day *f February 2018, to verify which witness my hand and seal of office. Notary Publi State of exas SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS -NEWS AND mySA.com I B5 Wil lead governments around the world to tighten emis- sions regulations and shift their economies away from fossil fuels. "Technology and in- novation is more of a theme that it has ever been before," said Yergin, author of The Prize, the definitive history of the oil industry, "The focus of the oil and gas industry is on production, but it's also on using an immense amount Tito West / For the Express-News of data." Stacked drilling pipe is stacked at Abraxus Petroleum's Shut Eye Unit oil well Bartenders in Bexar County poured $46 million These issues will shape located south of San Antonio near Jourdanton in 2017. The energy industry is in worth of beer, wine and liquor in January. the discussion at research � flux, shaken up in part by the surge in U.S. oil and gas production. - I T J741A7ZX_!MJ= in Bexar County 1. AT&T Center: $847,842 2. JW Marriott San Antonio Hitt Country Resort & Spa: $743,685 3. La Cantera Resort & Spa: $506,474 4. Hyatt Regency Hitt Country Resort and Spa: $491,608 S. Alamodome: $399,354 6. Howl at the Moon: $389,751 7. Hotel Emma: $379,249 8. Grand Hyatt San Antonio: $361,963 9. Chelsea's Catering and Bar Service: $306,730 10. The Rustic: $302,085 11. Twin Peaks, 702 NW Loop 410: $278,357 12. Sugars: $260,193 13. Mad Dogs: $249,800 14. Topgoif USA San Antonio: $243,603 15. Bohanan's Prime Steaks and Seafood: $235,305 16. Ojos Locos Sports Cantina: $232,015 17. Boudro's Texas Bistro: $228,568 18. Mi Tierra Caf6 Y Panaderfa: $226,674 19. The Esquire Tavern: $224,350 20. Perfect 10 Mens Club: $208,529 Source: Texas comptroller's office 4110W 0 FIFACUREW&CIa"I JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country Resort & Spa, with almost $744,000 in alcohol sales. Taking the third place slot locally in January was DH San Antonio Beveo Inc., the contractor for the La Cantera Resort & Spa — selling about $506,00o worth of booze. HRHC Inc., the caterer for Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort and Spa, came in fourth locally, 1:6A&3AU_1.W From page Bi hot summer day. Warnken said "the name of the game is the performance aspect ... we need to make sure that all of our resources are avail- able." If those resources aren't available and the system sees shortages ERGOT said it "antici- pates voluntary load reductions and an in- crease in power sold in the market by industrial si were to fall off a celebrity unnoticed," he said. "Maybe a bracelet be- comes unhinged, falls on the red carpet, gets kicked, or an earring falls off and gets kicked and nobody notices. They don't notice until later it's gone. We hold our breaths until all the ba- bies come home the next day.,, Celebrity branding is a huge business bump overall for jewelers, and red carpets are a huge part of that. Aside from the custom- ary media coverage, stars bring attention to the jewelry they wear on their social media accounts. A celebrity's reach there can bring in millions of views, leading some companies to pay the famous to bor- row jewels for social me- dia purposes alone. But not Martin Katz. As a small independent jeweler without stores all over the world, it doesn't make sense for him to build that expense into his advertising budget. serving more than $491,000 in alcohol in January. And the Alamodome rounded out the local top five with about $399,000 in sales in January. San Antonio may want to drink up while it can do so cheaply- the beer industry is warning that President Donald Trump's proposed to percent tariff on imported aluminum could raise prices on canned beer. jfechter@express-news.net I Twitter: @JFreports facilities in response to higher power prices dur- ing peak demand." ERGOT spokeswoman Leslie Sopko said the grid operator has only bad three systemwide rotating power outages in its en- tire history, in Dec. 1989, April 2006, and Feb. 2011. Public Utility Commis- sion of Texas spokesman Mike Hoke said in an emailed statement that ERGOT, retail providers and distribution utilities operate programs "that compensate customers who can temporarily Trustey would not comment on whether Forevermark Diamonds pays stars to wear their jewels. Trends in red carpet jewelry are hard to identi- fy since there are so many evergreen looks. Forev- ermark's Trustey said ear climbers and chandelier earrings were big for the company this awards season, starting with the Golden Globes. Kate Hud- son was among the stars to don climbers on that firm IHS Markit's,37th annual CERAWeek when it opens in Houston on Monday, an event that attracts the biggest names in the industry, including CEOs, government offi- cials and political leaders. This year's headliners include U.S. Secretary of Energy and former Texas governor Rick Perry, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, OPEC Secre- tary General Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo and Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser. Yergin, the vice chair- man of IHS Markit, will lead conversations about the future of an industry in flux, shaken up in part by the surge in U.S. oil and gas production that has upended global trade and geopolitics by flood- ing markets with cheap and plentiful petroleum extracted from vast shale reserves in Texas and elsewhere. The U.S., now among the world's top crude oil producers, is expected to pump out an average of io.6 million barrels a day this year, surpassing Saudi Arabia and nearing Russia in output. The U.S. is also produc- ing and exporting record amounts of natural gas to countries in Latin Amer- ica and Asia, where de- mand has grown as part of an effort to reduce emissions with cleaner- burning energy sources. The U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas last year for the first time since 1957, driven in part reduce their demand or operate their own genera- tion if outages of large power plants occur dur- ing extreme weather conditions." The PUC regulates the state's elec- tric, telecommunication, and water and sewer utilities. The warnings come after the state set and broke multiple winter peak use records in Janu- ary, setting the current winter record the morn- ing of Jan. 17 when Tex- ans used more than 65,731 megawatts of power. Most carpet. , Also, I would say statement necklaces. Alli- son Williams wore an incredible 43-carat bib necklace to the Golden Globes which was in- credible as well, so expect to see a lot more of those," Trustey said. Katz said the Oscars prompt many celebrities to gravitate toward dia- monds, but he's not en- tirely sold on the practice. "To me, sometimes there is more of a stylized fashionable statement that's made with color," he said. Colored jewels can read younger and more relat- able, "So that it doesn't look like they're bor- rowed," Katz explained. But diamonds, for many, are forever. Trustey recalled the 2014 Academy Awards, when Margot Robbie dyed her blonde hair dark brown and wore a stun- ning classic diamond necklace. "It was her first time there. It was right after `(The) Wolf of Wall Street' and she came out chan- neling old Hollywood glamour and she was by a massive expansion in cross-border pipelines to Mexico and overseas ship- ments of liquified natural gas z by Houston's Che- niere Energy. The prolific Permian Basin in West Texas has accounted for much of the growth, and major oil companies including Ex- xon Mobil and Chevron Corp. are expanding oper- ations in that region and crunching troves of data to make the most of their investments. "The impact Texas has on the global oil market is as large as it has ever been," Yergin said. "Dif- ferent players are trying to understand how the structure of the market is changing." But OPEC, which last year lifted global oil prices with a sustained cut in production, remains a key player in determining the state of the market. OPEC Secretary-General Mo- bammad Sanusi Barkindo will join Yergin and Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, for a discussion about changes in the glob- al energy economy. U.S. producers, mean- while, remain focused on advancing hydraulic frac- turing and drilling tech- niques to produce more oil and gas at lower costs. Digital technology, mean- while, is further trans- forming oil field opera- tions, said Andrew Smart, who leads the global ener- gy practice for researcher and consultant Accenture. of the state was gripped by a prolonged cold, and temperatures in San An- tonio that morning hover- ed in the 20S — but there were no rolling blackouts. The most recent black- out occurred in February 2011 when a cold snap gripped Texas. ERGOT forced utilities to shed load to keep the system stable, and at the time CPS was called on to shed hundreds of mega- watts of power. rdruzin@express-news.net I Twitter. @druzjourno wearing a 6o-carat dia- mond Riviera necklace as well as a 14-carat ring, and her overall look, I would say, was about $2.5 Mil- lion," she said. Trustey said Forev- ermark Diamonds will customize jewelry for red carpets. Last year, celebrity stylist Karla Welch de- signed a pair of diamond ear dusters for Sarah Paulson and recently for Elisabeth Moss when she won her Emmy. Once the jewels are returned, the jeweler can attempt to sell them as is. More com- monly, they are taken apart and repurposed to make other pieces. Elizabeth Taylor and Joan Collins were among stars known to collect their own extravagant jewelry, but that practice has dwindled, if not be- come extinct. "I used to have a lot of celebrity clients, but over the years what has hap- pened with celebrity as an advertisement — they are gifted at so many things, they are loaned so many things. They virtually have no need to buy any- thing," Katz said. Accenture, which will present at the conference's sessions on innovation, found in a recent survey that oil production compa- nies have already begun to adopt digital tools to speed production and expect to invest in tech- nologies such as robotics in the coming years. "We will continue to be a premier player in the global energy mix," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group. "Who would have thought it six or seven years ago?" Oil and gas, however, will share the CERAWeek spotlight with renewable technologies and dis- cussions about the role wind and solar power will play as governments around the world enact policies to lower emis- sions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to meet targets un- der the United Nations climate accord ratified last year. Meanwhile, fuel- efficient and electric vehi- cles are lessening the transportation industry's reliance on oil. Gasoline and diesel accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. demand for crude. Last year, the confer- ence discussed if and when oil demand will peak in the coming de- cades. This year, Yergin expects a more nuanced conversation about how best to use a mix of differ- ent energy sources and technologies to reduce emissions and push the industry into a more effi- cient and cleaner future. "Now," he said. "it's more of a question of what an energy transition actu- ally means." Legal NOU00s The City of San Antonio's Board of Adjustment will hold a Public Hearing at 1:00 PM., on Monday, March 19, 2018 at the Cliff Morton Development and Busi- ness Services Center, 1901 South Alamo Street, to consider the following items: CASE NO. A-18-040 Applicant: Joseph Garcia Lot 8, Block 8, NCB 583 906 East Crockett Street "RM-4 H AHOD" Residential Mixed Historic Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for 1) a special exception to allow a six foot six inch tall predominately open fence in the front yard and 11 a request for a special exception to allow a six foot six me solid screen fence in the front yard of the property and 3) a two foot and eleven inch variance from the three foot side setback to allow a detached patio cover to be one inch from the side property line, CASE NO. A18-045 Applicant: Richard Rabago Lot 15, Block 1, NCB 13862 5802 Drive TZ-5 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a four foot variance from the five foot side setback requirement to allow a metal carport to be one foot from the side property line. CASE NO. AIS-048 Applicant: Enrique Guerrero Lot 22, NCB 2402 205 Del Valle Alley 'R_4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for 1) a 2' variance from the 5' side setback on the west side to allow the house to be 3' awar, from the property line 2) a 2'5" variance from the 5' side setback on the east side to allow the house to be 27" away from the property line, 3) a 17" variance from the 20' rear setback to allow the house to be as near as 3' from the rear property line. CASE NO. A18-049 Applicant: Edward A. Hernandez Lot S 75 Ft of 14, Block 25, NCB 6446 1 755 Center Street North TZA EP -1 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Facility Parking/Traffic Control Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a 1) a twelve foot variance from the twenty foot rear setback to allow an addition to be as near as eight feet from the rear property line. CASE NO. A-18-050 Applicant: Joann Handley Lot 8, Block 4, NCB 17721 16815 Winding Oak Drive R-4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for nine foot and eleven inch variance from the required ten foot front setback to allow a carport to be one inch from the front property line. CASE NO. A-18-051 Applicant: Charles Pope Lot 22, NCB 9503 2510 SW Military Drive 1-2 AHOD" Heavy Industrial Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for an eight foot variance form the 15 foot Type B landscape bufferyard requirement to allow a bufferyard to be as narrow as seven feet. CASE NO. A-18-02 Applicant: Charles Pope Lot 7, Block 16, NCB 14477 Loop 410 at Poteet Jourdanton Freeway "C-2S AHOD" Commercial Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a seven foot variance from the 15 foot Type B landscaped bufferyard requirement Now a bufferyard to be as narrow as eight feet in width. CASE NO. A-18-053 Applicant: Jennifer Wolf Lot P-23, P-9, P-9B, P-9C, P-21, P-22, P-23 & CB 4361 P-9, P-9B, & P-20G ABS, District Generally ,.,t 34361 'C-3` General Commercial r, ct Generally lo cared southwest of the in- tersection of Loop 1604 and Potranco Road. Known as Parcel 418973 A request for 1) a 15 foot variance from the 45 foot maximum sign height for a secondary sign to allow a sign to be 60 feet tall and 2) 162.5 square foot variance from the 487.5 square foot maximum area for a secondary sign to allow the same sign to be 650 square feet and 3) a 19'11" variance from the 20 foot maximum sign height to allow a sign to be 39.11 square foot and 4) 124.9 square foot variance from the 125 square foot maximum to allow a sign to be 249.9 square feet in area and 5) an 80 foot variance from the 150 foot distance requirement between two proposed signs along Loop 1604 Frontage Road to allow two signs to be 70 feet apart. CASE NO. A-18-054 Applicant: Angela Menchaca Lot 8, Block 2, NCB 2826 338 Simon "R-6 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a two and a half foot variance from the five foot side setback require- ment to allow an attached two-story room addition to be built two and a half feet from the side property line. CASE NO. A18-055 Applicant: Cynthia Neal Lot 15, Block 5, NCB 10186 103 Gazel Drive "R-4 AHOD" Residential Single-Family Airport Hazard Overlay District A request for a special exception to allow a four-year renewal for a one-operator beauty shop in a single family home. CORRECTED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEES Schertz City Hall 6-00 pm, March 13, 2018 The City Council of the City of Schertz will convene a public hearing on March 13, 2018, at 6:00 pm in City Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 to consider adoption of a roadway impact fee that may be imposed for roadway facilities in the City. The maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,647.53 in Service Area 1, $1,327.89 in Service Area 2, $1,044.48 in Service Area 3, and $2,392.72 in Service Area 4. City Council may impose impact fees per service unit less than or equal to those maximum amounts. Any member of the public has the right to appear at the public hearing and present evidence for or against the roadway impact fee. More information, including the detailed report to be reviewed by the City Council, can be found at Schertz.com. Questions may be directed to Kathryn Woodlee, City Engineer (210) 619-1801 . PUBLIC NOTICE WINDSOR MISSION OAKS does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, genetics or age in admission, treatment, or participation in its programs, services and activities, or in e%oyment. For further information about this policy, contact Cain Smith at 210-924-8151. SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC., Construc- tion Manager -at -Risk, for the Alamo Colleges will be accepting proposals from qualified subcontractors for the Alamo Colleges District Support Operations Building Technology Package (Structured Cabling, Security and AV Multimedia) locate at 2222 N. Alamo St. , San Antonio, TX 78215. Bids will be due Monday March 19th, 2018 @ 2:00 PM CST via email or fax. Email sonny.knox @skanska.com / Fax 210-301-7101. Plans and specifica- tions are available electronically via www.isqft.com (Project No. 3416014). All questions should be submitted to Sonny Knox % COB Wednesday March 14th, 2018. BE/SBE/WBE/AABE/HUB firms are encouraged to submit proposals on this oject. Skanska USA Building is an equal opportunity (EEO) employer. There will NOT be a Pre-Bid conference for this bid package. For specific questions or a request to meet, please contact Sonny Know Ca) 210-559-8370, REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) is currently soliciting Statements of Qualifications from firms with a strong record in tidal/delta experience. The selected firm will assist GBRA with establishing a seasonal ecological assess- ment program in the upper Guadalupe Delta. All qualified firms including Small, Minority, and Women Owned Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals in response to this request. Responses may be submitted until 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 19, 2018. Forms and specifications may be obtained by contacting Yolanda Pierce at ypierce@gbra.org. Responses shall be sealed and clearly marked: "RFQ - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ". The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals at its option and to waive any formalities. SKANSKA USA BUILDING INC., Construc- tion Manager-at-Risk, for the Alamo Colleges will be accepting proposals from qualified subcontractors for the Alamo Colleges District Support Operations Building Technology Package (Structured Cabling, Security and A Multimedia) located at 2222 N. Alamo St., San Antonio TX 78215. Bids will be due Monday March 19th, 2018 @ 2:00 PM CST via email or fax. Email sonny.knox@skanska.com / Fax 210-301-7101, Plans and specifica- tions are available electronically via are encouraged to submit proposals on this project. Skanska USA Building is an equal opportunity (EEO) employer, There will NOT be a Pre-Bid conference for this bid package. For specific questions or a request to meet, please contact Sonny Knox @ 210-559-8370. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT/DEMOLITION East Central Independent School District is seeking proposals for Asbestos Abate- ment/Demolition, A mandatory Pre-bid Conference will be held at 10 a.m., the 13th day of March, 2018, at the main entrance to Pecan Valley Elementary School, located at 3966 East Southcross, San Antonio, Texas. Diagrams and Specifi- cations can be obtained from the office of the Consultant, Burcham Environmental Services, L.L.C, P.O. Box 249, Wimber[7, Texas 78676, (512) 396-5725. Sealed bids will be received at the East Central Independent School District, District Administration Office, 6634 New Sulphur Springs Rd, San Antonio, Texas, Nirl)) 648-7861, until 2:00 p.m., on the 20th day of March, 2018. CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 . Department: Engineering Agenda No. 11 Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -28 — A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas approving and authorizing Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreements along Wiederstein Road from Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District and San Antonio One and San Antonio Two Limited Partnerships, and other matters in connection therewith BACKGROUND The owners of the undeveloped land along the east side of Wiederstein Road between IH 35 and Old Wiederstein Road recently caused the construction of a sanitary sewer extension along a portion of the frontage on Wiederstein Road. The main is intended to serve the parcels owned by San Antonio One and San Antonio Tree Limited Partnerships and the parcel owned by Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School. District (SCUCISD) when they develop. As an extension of the City of Schertz sanitary sewer system, the City will accept the main as a public improvement and therefore requires easements in order to access the facilities for operation and maintenance. Goal The goal of Resolution 18 -R -28 is accept and authorize the Sanitary Sewer Easements from SCUCISD and San Antonio One LP and San Antonio Three LP. Community Benefit Ensuring properly designed, constructed, and maintained sanitary sewer facilities to serve orderly development meets a core service need in keeping with the Strategic Plan of the City. Summary of Recommended Action Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 1.8 -R -28, approving and authorizing execution of the Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreements with SCUCISD and San Antonio One LP and San Antonio Three LP. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact from this Resolution. 1• Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 1.8 -R -28 City Council Memorandum Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Resolution 18 -R -28 Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement with San Antonio One LP and San Antonio Three LP Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement with SCUCISD RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -28 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENTS ALONG WIEDERSTEIN ROAD FROM THE SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SAN ANTONIO ONE AND SAN ANTONIO THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City enter into agreements for Sanitary Sewer Easements with the Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD) and San Antonio One and San Antonio Three Limited Partnerships (collectively, the "Grantors "), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Agreements "); and WHEREAS, the City needs the Sanitary Sewer Easements in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a sanitary sewer main along Wiederstein Road in the vicinity of the intersections of Wiederstein Road with IH 35 and with Old Wiederstein Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the Sanitary Sewer Easements in accordance with the terms of the Agreements. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and deliver the Agreements with the Grantors in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit A and to accept the Sanitary Sewer Easements in accordance with the terms of the Agreements. 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 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A . �. W EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT rolm RESOLUTION 18 -R -28 EXHIBIT A EASEMENT AGREEMENTS ONENOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF GUADALUPE § GRANT OF EASEMENT: SAN ANTONIO ONE and SAN ANTONIO THREE, MICHICAN LIMITS PARTNERSHIPS, 2111 Woodward Ave. #910, Detroit, MI 48201 ( "Grantors "), for the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way ( "Easement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ( "Easement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water and sanitary sewer facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term. Easement shall be in perpetuity unless relinquished or abandoned by ordinance or resolution by Grantee. 5. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (1) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Secondary Easement. Holder has the right (the "Secondary Easement ") to use the surface of the 20 -foot wide area adjacent to the Easement Property, to assist in the initial installation and as may be reasonably necessary to maintain, repair, and replace the Facilities within the Easement Property of the Facilities within the Easement Property. However, Holder must promptly restore the area of the Temporary Construction Easement to its previous physical condition if changed by use of the rights granted by this Secondary Easement. 7. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 8., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 8. Maintenance of Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 9. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 10. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 11. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 12. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 13. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 14. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 15. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 16. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 17. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 18. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 19. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 20. Recitals /Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 21. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. I 1 WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed this � k° � day of V411 A; 2018. p GRANTOR: �T San Antonio One and San Antonio Three Limited Partnerships M w (Grantor's Marne) By: ° (Grantor's Signature) CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF GUADALUPE § Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) 0.4650 Acres (20,255 Sq. Ft.) 2223- 10600_ex1 A &B.dwg (3 Stantec FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION for a FN NO. 2223 - 10600 -1 May 9, 2017 JOB NO. 2223 -10600 Being 0.4650 acres situated in the city of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas and being out of the remaining portion of a called 200.198 acre tract as conveyed to San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership by Special Warranty Deed dated January 27, 1992 and recorded in Volume 979, Page 475 of the Official Records of Guadalupe County, Texas; said 0.4650 acres consisting of two parts; Part 1 being 0.3978 acres and Part 2 being 0.0672 acres; said 0.4650 acres being more particularly described by Metes and Bounds as follows with all bearings being referenced to the North American Datum 1983, Texas Coordinate System, South Central Zone, as established from the WDS Cooperative State Wide VRS Network: Part 1: (0.3978 Acres) Commencing, at a found Y2 -inch iron rod for the most Southerly corner of said remainder of a 200.198 acre tract, being at the intersection of the Northeast right -of -way line of Old Wiederstein Road (C.R. 382) and the Northwest right -of -way line of Wiederstein Road; Thence, N 310 14' 25" W, 669.30 feet, along the Northeast right -of -way line of said Old Wiederstein Road to a point; said point being on the Northwesterly line of a 100' wide lane connecting Old Wiederstein Road to a 101.239 acre tract as conveyed from San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership to The Board of Trustees of the Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District by Correction Warranty Deed dated August 29, 2012 and recorded in Volume 4216, Page 649 of the Official Public Records of Guadalupe County, Texas; Thence, N 581 45' 35" E, 30.41 feet, along the Northwesterly line of said School tract lane, to the Point of Beginning for the herein described tract of land; Thence, N 310 23' 30" W, 1065.14 feet, to an angle point for corner; Thence, N 76120' 32" W, 11.73 feet, to an angle point for corner; Page 2 of 5 Thence, N 130 39' 28" E, 16.00 feet, to a point for the most Northerly corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 760 20' 32" E, 18.33 feet, to an angle point for corner; Thence, S 310 23' 31" E, 1071.82 feet, to a point on the Northwesterly line of said School tract lane, for the Southeast corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 581 45' 35" W, 16.00 feet, along the Northwesterly line of said School tract land, to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.3978 acres (17,329 square feet) of land, more or less. Part 2: (0.0672 acres) Commencing, at a found Y2 -inch iron rod for the most Southerly corner of said remainder of a 200.198 acre tract, being at the intersection of the Northeast right -of -way line of Old Wiederstein Road (C.R. 382) and the Northwest right -of -way line of Wiederstein Road; Thence, N 310 14' 25" W, 569.30 feet, along the Northeast right -of -way line of said Old Wiederstein Road to a point; said point being on the Southeasterly line of a 100' wide lane connecting Old Wiederstein Road to a 101.239 acre tract as conveyed from San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership to The Board of Trustees of the Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District by Correction Warranty Deed dated August 29, 2012 and recorded in Volume 4216, Page 649 of the Official Public Records of Guadalupe County, Texas Thence, N 580 45' 35" E, 30.67 feet, along the Southeasterly line of said School tract lane, to the Point of Beginning for the herein described tract; Thence, N 580 45' 35" E, 16.00 feet, along the Southeasterly line of said School tract lane, to a point for the Northeast corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 310 23' 31" E, 182.92 feet, to a point for the Southeast corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 580 52' 36" W, 16.00 feet, to a point for the Southwest corner of the herein described tract; Thence, N 310 23' 30" W, 182.89 feet, to the Point of einin , containing 0.0672 acres (2926 square feet) of land, more or less. !� ♦ _ • . w ♦ 111.;1 ... ±y' / x� F °7 } A jfJ 3 . �{,c�" f Hal . Lane III DATE ,.. ax Registered Professional Land Surveyor ° ° Texas Registration Number 4690 69 � tantec Consulting Services, Inca ' " 70 NE Loop 410, Suite 1100 San Antonio, Texas 78216 210/525 -909 TBPLS Fir o.: 10194228 LEGEND PAGE 4 OF 5 • 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND �� O 1/2" IRON ROD SET P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 0 100 00 X00 400 P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING BEAFUNG BA818 'BOG' BEARINGS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM, 1983, TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE WDS COOPERATIVE NETWORK. San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership \ (OWNER) \ Vol. 979, Pg. 475 S 76'20'32" E D.R.G.C.T. N 13'39'28" E 18.33' 16.00, 16'WATERLINE /�VOL EASEMENT 1635 PG. 730 16' SANITARY SEWER S 58 °45'3 EASEMENT 16.00' 0.3978 Ac. (17,329 sq. ft.) `'IN 58'45'35 i a 0, � s Fnd. 1/2" I.R.3���" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF Stant c OF A 0.3978 ACRE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BEING A 70 NE Loop 410, Suite 1100 PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED XH IT San Antonio, TX 78216 TO SAN ANTONIO ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP & SAN To[, (210) 525 -9090 Fez (210) 525 -0529 ANTONIO THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN VOLUME 979, TBPLS n F- 10194229 PAGE 475 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF GUADALUPE Copyright 02017 COUNTY, TEXAS DATE: 05/0912017 SCALE: 1 " =2W DRAWN BY: HBL FILE: 2223- 10600ex1Adwg PROJECT No 2223 -10600 Board of Trustees of the �� Schertz— Cibolo— Universal City e- �.0 Independent School District s• (OWNER) �+ 'pp pa'r Vol. 4216, Pg. 649 cFP'r O.P.R.G.C.T. O t�j fs s 4Q �9 9C F N VARIABLE WIDTH WATERLINE EASEMENT VOL. 4193, PG. 479 16' SANITARY SEWER S 58 °45'3 EASEMENT 16.00' 0.3978 Ac. (17,329 sq. ft.) `'IN 58'45'35 i a 0, � s Fnd. 1/2" I.R.3���" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF Stant c OF A 0.3978 ACRE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BEING A 70 NE Loop 410, Suite 1100 PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED XH IT San Antonio, TX 78216 TO SAN ANTONIO ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP & SAN To[, (210) 525 -9090 Fez (210) 525 -0529 ANTONIO THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN VOLUME 979, TBPLS n F- 10194229 PAGE 475 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF GUADALUPE Copyright 02017 COUNTY, TEXAS DATE: 05/0912017 SCALE: 1 " =2W DRAWN BY: HBL FILE: 2223- 10600ex1Adwg PROJECT No 2223 -10600 LEGEND PAGE 5 OF 5 • 1/2-IRON ROD FOUND O 1 /2" IRON ROD SET P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING U 00 ? "00 ;("�0 BEARING BASIS D 0 BEARINGS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM, 1983, TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE WDS COOPERATIVE NETWORK, 16' WATERLI EAS T VOL. 5, PG. 730 Board of Trustees of the ', Schertz— Cibolo— Universal City Independent School District \\ � %6:6 (OWNER) 1\ °9,° Vol. 4216, Pg. 649 O.P.R.G.C.T. 4. 't p �: a: VARIABLE WIDTH IN WATERLINE EASEMENT �.p VOL. 4193, PG. 479 v�Y3r � f \ N 58'45'35" E 16.00' N 58'45'35" E S 31'23'31" E 30.67' 182.92' v�±± P.O.B. $�r 16'' SANITARY SEWER op EASEMENT® 0.0672 Ac. %,APaQ (2,926 sq. ft.) N 31'23'30" W 182.89' S 58'52'36" W L1~ \ 16.00' '_ \ vo< \ O . P.O.C. \� '<<c.�� Stant SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF OF A 0.0672 ACRE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BEING A 70 NE Loop 410, suite 1100 PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED EXHIBIT Son Antonio, Tx 78218 TO SAN ANTONIO ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP & SAN Tei. (210) 525 -9090 Fax (210) 5250529 ANTONIO THREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN VOLUME 979, T8PL3 # F- 10194228 PAGE 475 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF GUADALUPE Copyright o 2017 COUNTY, TEXAS DATE: 0 510 9/2 01 7 SCALE: V=250' DRAWN BY: HBL FILE: 222 3- 1 060 0ex1B DWG PROJECT No 2223 -10600 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. SANITARY SEVER EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF GUADALUPE § GRANT OF EASEMENT: SCHERTZ CIBOLO UNIVERSAL CITY ISD, 1060 Eibel Road, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantor "), for the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way ( "Easement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ( "Easement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: 1, Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water and sanitary sewer facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term, Easement shall be in perpetuity unless relinquished or abandoned by ordinance or resolution by Grantee. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (i) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Secondary Easement. Holder has the right (the "Secondary Easement ") to use the surface of the 20 -foot wide area adjacent to the Easement Property, to assist in the initial installation and as may be reasonably necessary to maintain, repair, and replace the Facilities within the Easement Property of the Facilities within the Easement Property. However, Holder must promptly restore the area of the Temporary Construction Easement to its previous physical condition if changed by use of the rights granted by this Secondary Easement. 7. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 8., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 8. Maintenance of Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 9. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 10. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 11. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 12. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 13. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 14. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 15. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 16. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 17. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 18. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 19. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 20. Recitals/Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 21. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 20x1 THE STATE OF COUNTY OF this instrument is executed this day of NTH : (seal) �� En.wR Et GRANTEE: AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality C THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) EXHIBIT "A" EASEMENT TRACT 0.0367 Acres (1600 Sq. Ft.) 2223- 10600_ex2.dwg EXHIBIT "A" (i Stantec FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION for a 16' Sanitary Sewer Easemen! FN NO. 2223 - 10600 -2 May 9, 2017 JOB NO. 2223 -10600 Being 0.0367 acres situated in the city of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas and being out of that certain called 101.239 acre tract as conveyed from San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership to The Board of Trustees of the Schertz - Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District by Correction Warranty Deed dated August 29, 2012 and recorded in Volume 4216, Page 649 of the Official Public Records of Guadalupe County, Texas; said 0.0367 acres being more particularly described by Metes and Bounds as follows with all bearings being referenced to the North American Datum 1983, Texas Coordinate System, South Central Zone, as established from the WDS Cooperative State Wide VRS Network: Commencing, at a found '/2 -inch iron rod for the most Southerly corner of a remainder of a 200.198 acre tract as conveyed to San Antonio One Limited Partnership & San Antonio Three Limited Partnership by Special Warranty Deed dated January 27, 1992 and recorded in Volume 979, Page 475 of the Official Records of Guadalupe County, Texas; being at the intersection of the Northeast right -of -way line of Old Wiederstein Road (C.R. 382) and the Northwest right -of -way line of Wiederstein Road; Thence, N 310 14' 25" W, 669.30 feet, along the Northeast right -of -way line of said Old Wiederstein Road to a point; said point being on the Northwesterly line of a 100' wide lane connecting Old Wiederstein Road to said 101.239 acre School and also being on the Southeast line of the remainder of said 200.198 acre tract; Thence, N 580 45' 35" E, 30.41 feet, along the Northwesterly line of said School tract and the Southeasterly line of said remainder of 200.198 acres, to the Point of Beginning for the herein described tract of land; Thence, N 58° 45' 35" E, 16.00 feet, along the Northwesterly line of said School tract and the Southeasterly line of said remainder of 200.198 acres, to a point for the Northeast corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 310 23' 31" E, 100.00 feet, to a point on the Southeast line of said 101.239 acre School tract and the Northwest line of a remaining portion of said 200.198 acres, for the Southeast corner of the herein described tract; Thence, S 581 45' 35" W, 16.00 feet along the Southeast line of said 101.239 acre School tract and the Northwest line of a remaining portion of said 200.198 acres, to a point for the Southwest corner of the herein described tract; Thence, N 310 23' 30" W, 100.00 feet, to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.0367 acres (1600 square feet) of land, more or less. Note: Survey exhibit of even date to accompany this Metes and Bounds Description. ' ♦\ \ Hal B. Lane III DATE i' HAL B LANE ..I.. 4690 Registered Professional Land Surveyor Texas Registration Number 4690��i .'. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 70 NE Loop 410, Suite 1100 San Antonio, Texas 78216 210/525 -9090 TBPLS Firm No.: 10194228 LEGEND PAGE 3 OF 3 0 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND O 1/2" IRON ROD SET P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING 604" SAM BEARINGS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM, 1983, TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS UTILIZING THE WDS COOPERATIVE NETWORK, \\ 16' WATERLINE \ EASEMENT VOL. 1635, PG, 730 \5 Board Trustees the of of Cibolo— Universol City Schertz— Independent School District NN (ONMER) a Vol. 4216, Pg. 649 \JL $ O.P.R.G.C.T. p \ J g VARIABLE YADTH WATERLINE EASEMENT VOL. 4193, PG. 479 \/f S5 845'35" W \ 16.00' \ N 58'45'35" E \ S 31'23'31" E P.O.B. 1 nO.na' 16' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ti `S 5845'35` w 16.00' 0.0367 AC. N 31-23- oo.00 (1,600 sq. ft.) ?J \ 'INN \ .o Find, /2" I.R. SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF Q�^� Sta �t'�c OF A 00367 ACRE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT BEING 7o N6loep 4l B,BW. H00 PORTIONOFTHATCERTAINTRACTOFLANDCONVEYEO EXHIBIT S.n AnroNO. T%76t1e TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE BCHERRCIBOLOi1NNER3AL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOLDISTRICT IN VOLUME 4216, 7NDfoI O2s m7F., Fiy uw.a 10iw27e PAGE 8490E THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TBPLSOF- I.Poih10 2017 GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS DATE: OS100720i7 SCALE: I' -200 DRAWN BY_HSL FILE: 2233.10600.2 duo PRO.IECTNO 2223 -IOBW CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 . Department: Engineering Agenda No. 12 Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -29 — A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Schertz, Texas approving and authorizing a Waterline Easement Agreement with Schertz - Cibolo - Universal City Independent School District, for a public water main on the Samuel Clemens High School campus, and other matters in connection therewith BACKGROUND As part of the renovations of the Samuel Clemens High School Campus, a public water main running across the property providing fire protection including hydrants and service to building sprinkler systems has been relocated. Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD) is providing a Waterline Easement through which the City of Schertz can access the water main facilities for operation and maintenance purposes. Goal The goal of Resolution 1.8 -R -29 is accept and authorize the Waterline Easement from SCUCISD. Community Benefit Ensuring properly designed, constructed, and maintained public water facilities for fire protection meets a core service need in keeping with the Strategic Plan of the City. Summary of Recommended Action. Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 18 -R -29, approving and authorizing execution of the Waterline Easement Agreement with SCUCISD. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact from this Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve Resolution 1.8 -R -29 ATTACHMENTS Resolution 18 -R -29 Waterline Easement Agreement with SCUCISD RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -29 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A WATERLINE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THROUGH THE SAMUEL CLEMENS HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS FROM THE SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City staff of the City of Schertz (the "City ") has recommended that the City enter into an agreement for a Waterline Easement with the Schertz- Cibolo- Universal City Independent School District (SCUCISD) (the "Grantor "), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Agreement "); and WHEREAS, the City needs the Waterline Easement in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a water main including fire hydrants, on the SCUCISD campus of Samuel Clemens High School located on Elbel Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the Waterline Easement in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute and deliver the Agreement with the Grantor in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit A and to accept the Waterline Easement in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. 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 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) EXHIBIT A . �. W EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT rolm RESOLUTION 18 -R -29 EXHIBIT A EASEMENT AGREEMENT NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. WATER LINE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE GRANT OF EASEMENT: SCHERTZ- CIBOLO- UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate and political subdivision in the Counties of Guadalupe and Bexar, State of Texas ( "Grantor "), for the sum of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule city, with offices located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas 78154 ( "Grantee "), an easement and right -of -way ( "Easement ") upon and across the property of Grantor which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ( "Easement Tract "), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to Grantee and its successors and assigns, together with the rights, and privileges and on the terms and conditions set forth below; and Grantor, subject to the Exceptions, to Warranty, does hereby covenant and agree to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND title to the Easement herein granted, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof. Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions apply to the Easement granted by this agreement: Definitions. For the purposes of this grant of Easement certain terms shall have the meanings that follow: (a) "Holder" shall mean Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns who at any time own any interest in the conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. (b) "Public Utility" shall mean water lines and fire hydrant facilities. 2. Character of Easement. The Easement granted herein is "in gross," in that there is no "Benefitted Property." Nevertheless, the Easement rights herein granted shall pass to Grantee's successors and assigns, subject to all of the Terms hereof. The Easement rights of use granted herein are nonexclusive and irrevocable. The Easement is for the benefit of Holder. 3. Purpose of Easement. The Easement shall be used for public utility purposes, including placement, construction, installation, replacement, repair, maintenance, relocation, removal, and operation of public utility facilities and related appurtenances, or making connections thereto. The Easement shall also be used for the purpose of providing access for the operation, repair, maintenance, replacement and expansion of the public utility facilities and related appurtenances. 4. Term. Easement shall be in perpetuity unless relinquished or abandoned by ordinance or resolution by Grantee. 5. Reservation of Rights. Holder's right to use the Easement Property is nonexclusive, and Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns retain the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder as long as such use by Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns does not (i) interfere with the use of the Easement Property by Holder for the Easement Purpose, nor (ii) may Grantor construct any building, structure or obstruction on the Easement Property. The right to convey to others the right to use all or part of the Easement Property in conjunction with Holder, as long as such further conveyance is subject to the terms of this agreement. Written approval of Holder must be obtained prior to any use or improvement of Easement Property. 6. Secondary Easement. Holder has the right (the "Secondary Easement ") to use the surface of the 20 -foot wide area adjacent to the Easement Property, to assist in the initial installation and as may be reasonably necessary to maintain, repair, and replace the Facilities within the Easement Property of the Facilities within the Easement Property. However, Holder must promptly restore the area of the Temporary Construction Easement to its previous physical condition if changed by use of the rights granted by this Secondary Easement. 7. Improvement and Maintenance of Easement Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 8., immediately below, improvement and maintenance of the Easement Property and the Facilities will be at the sole expense of Holder. Holder has the right to eliminate any encroachments into the Easement Property. Holder has the right to construct, install, maintain, replace, and remove the Facilities under or across any portion of the Easement Property. All matters concerning the Facilities and their configuration, construction, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal are at Holder's sole discretion, subject to performance of Holder's obligations under this agreement. Holder has the right to remove or relocate any fences or other encroachments within the Easement Property or along or near its boundary lines if reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, replace, or remove the Facilities. Holder will also replace to their original condition any landscaping, driveways or parking areas that were in existence prior to the granting of the Easement Property and are damaged in connection with the work. 8. Maintenance of Surface Easement Property /Permitted Improvements. Notwithstanding any contrary provision, Grantor shall retain the obligation to maintain the surface of the Easement Property, including the obligation to regularly mow or cut back vegetation and to keep the surface of the Easement Property free of litter, debris, or trash. Any permitted improvement made by Grantor must comply with applicable ordinances, development codes and engineering guidelines of the City of Schertz, and must not conflict with use of the easement for its intended purpose as described herein. 9. Equitable Rights of Enforcement. This Easement may be enforced by restraining orders and injunctions (temporary or permanent) prohibiting interference and commanding compliance. Restraining orders and injunctions will be obtainable on proof of the existence of interference or threatened interference, without the necessity of proof of inadequacy of legal remedies or irreparable harm, and will be obtainable only by the parties to or those benefited by this agreement; provided, however, that the act of obtaining an injunction or restraining order will not be deemed to be an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights or remedies available at law or in equity. 10. Attorney's Fees. If either party retains an attorney to enforce this agreement, the party prevailing in litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court and other costs. 11. Binding Effect. This agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and permitted assigns. 12. Choice of Law. This agreement will be construed under the laws of the state of Texas, without regard to choice -of -law rules of any jurisdiction. Venue is in the county or counties in which the Easement Property is located. 13. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and will constitute one and the same instrument. 14. Waiver of Default. It is not a waiver of or consent to default if the non - defaulting party fails to declare immediately default or delays in taking any action. Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this agreement does not preclude pursuit of other remedies in this agreement or provided by law. 15. Further Assurances. Each signatory party agrees to execute and deliver any additional documents and instruments and to perform any additional acts necessary or appropriate to perform the terms, provisions, and conditions of this agreement and all transactions contemplated by this agreement. 16. Integration. This agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be varied except by written agreement of the parties. The parties agree that there are no oral agreements, representations, or warranties that are not expressly set forth in this agreement. 17. Exceptions to Warranty. This grant is subject to any and all encumbrances and easements of record, to the extent the same are valid and enforceable. 18. Legal Construction. Any provision in this agreement is for any reason unenforceable, to the extent the unenforceability does not destroy the basis of the bargain among the parties, the unenforceability will not affect any other provision hereof, and this agreement will be construed as if the unenforceable provision had never been a part of the agreement. Whenever context requires, the singular will include the plural and neuter include the masculine or feminine gender, and vice versa. Article and section headings in this agreement are for reference only and are not intended to restrict or define the text of any section. This agreement will not be construed more or less favorably between the parties by reason of authorship or origin of language. 19. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this agreement must be in writing. Any notice required by this agreement will be deemed to be delivered (whether actually received or not) when deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to the intended recipient at the address shown in this agreement. Notice may also be given by regular mail, personal delivery, courier delivery, facsimile transmission, or other commercially reasonable means and will be effective when actually received. Any address for notice may be changed by written notice delivered as provided herein. 20. Recitals /Exhibits. Any recitals in this agreement are represented by the parties to be accurate, and constitute a part of the substantive agreement. All exhibits referenced herein are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 21. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representation or modification concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect except for any subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. GRANTEE: AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, a Texas home -rule municipality C THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF GUADALUPE Brian James, Acting City Manager This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20, by Brian James, Acting City Manager of the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipality, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public Signature (seal) EXHIBIT "A" EASEMENT TRACT FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION OF 0.353 OF AN ACRE (15,390 SQUARE FEET) 16' Water Easement Page 1 of 4 A 0.353 of an acre (15,390 square feet) tract of land lying in the G. Malpaz Survey No. 67, Abstract No, 221, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas, same being a portion of a 29.379 acre tract of land described in a Warranty Deed to the Schertz - Cibolo Independent School District, dated January 10, 1962, recorded in Volume 346, Page 455, Deed and Plat Records of Guadalupe County, Texas, and a 20.0 acre tract of land described in a Warranty Deed to the Schertz - Cibolo Independent School District, Dated January 10, 1962, recorded in Volume 346, Page 454, Deed and Plat Records of Guadalupe County, Texas; said 0.353 of an acre (15,390 square feet) tract of land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing: At a found chiseled "X" in concrete at an interior angle point of Lot 1, Block 1, Final Plat of City of Schertz Municipal Complex, recorded in Volume 8, Pages 73 -76, Deed and Plat Records of Guadalupe County, Texas and the northeast corner of said 29.379 acre tract; Thence: S59 °31'10 "W, coincident with the southeast line of said Lot 1 and the northwest line of said 29.379 acre tract, a distance of 737.77 feet, whence a found chiseled "X" in concrete at an interior angle point of said Lot 1 and the southeasterly corner of a tract of land described in deed to Good Sheperd Catholic Church, recorded in Volume 408, Page 12, Official Public Records of Guadalupe County, Texas bears S59 031'10 "W, a distance of 1,197.19 feet; Thence: S30 028'50 "E, leaving the southeast line of said Lot 1 and the northwest line of said 29.379 acre tract, a distance of 309.68 feet to a set cotton spindle for the Point of Beginning of the easement described herein; Thence: Traversing said 29.379 acre tract and said 20.0 acre tract the following: S75 018'23 "E, a distance of 49.92 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; S30 018'23 "E, a distance of 606.47 feetto a set 1/2" iron rod with red cap stamped "CUDE" for the southeast corner of the easement described herein; S59 031'41 "W, a distance of 16.00 feet to a set cotton spindle for the most southerly southwest corner of the easement described herein; N30 018'23 "W, a distance of 202.33 feetto a set cotton spindle for an interior angle point of the easement described herein; EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 4 S59 041'37 "W, a distance of 22.43 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; N30 018'23 "W, a distance of 10.00 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; N59 °41'37 "E, a distance of 22.43 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; N30 °18'23 "W, a distance of 387.56 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; N75 °18'23 "W, a distance of 36.59 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S59 °15'47 "W, a distance of 12.39 feetto a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S30 °44'13 "E, a distance of 27.54 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S59 015'47 "W, a distance of 10.00 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; N30 °44'13 "W, a distance of 27.54 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S59 °15'47 "W, a distance of 173.74 feet to a chiseled "X" in concrete for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S79 °45'47 "W, a distance of 29.33 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; N89 °59'13 "W, a distance of 35.22 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; S00 °00'47 "W, at a distance of 20.70 feet crossing southwest line of said 29.379 acre tract and northeast line of said 20.0 acre tract, continuing for a total distance of 23.18 feetto a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; N89 059'13 "W, traversing the 20.0 acre tract, a distance of 10.00 feet to a set cotton spindle for an exterior angle point of the easement described herein; N00 °00'47 "E, at a distance of 19.45 feet crossing the northeast line of said 20.0 acre tract and the southwest line of said 29.379 acre tract, continuing for a total distance of 39.18 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; Thence: Traversing the 29.379 acre tract the following: S89 °59'13 "E, a distance of 43.79 feet to a set cotton spindle for an angle point of the easement described herein; \ —day / \iy 201y / \/, / z Job No. 03035M1 \ May 16, \017\ \ \K ?kBC\ FXHIRIT,, Agenda No. 13 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM City Council Meeting: March 13, 2018 Department: City Management Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -24 Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with the City of Seguin and the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation regarding the sale of SSLGC water by both member cities and other matters in connection with this. On January 31, 2018, Mayor Carpenter received a letter from City of Seguin Mayor Keil requesting the City of Schertz's approval for the City of Seguin to sell its share of excess SSLGC water to a Yd party wholesaler. The approval of the other city and SSLGC is required by the original agreement between both cities that formed the corporation if a city desires to directly sell SSLGC water to a 3rd party wholesaler. Since 1999, anytime a 3rd party wholesaler approached either city, that city would work with the wholesaler in an attempt to have this sale come from SSLGC. This is the first time either city has requested approval to sell SSLGC water to another party. Seguin city staff discussed the possibility of this request with Schertz staff in November 2017. During discussions, Schertz staff repeatedly expressed concerns with either partner selling SSLGC water. Schertz expressed our desire to see the 50 -50 partnership continue as it was originally set out in the 1999 agreement, but Seguin's concern was that this was already not occurring because of the difference in the amount of water each City was currently consuming. Seguin's position was selling additional water to other entities from the excess water available in their share would actually provide Seguin benefits closer to the ones enjoyed by Schertz (specifically lower effective water rates for SSLGC water due to greater water sales). Throughout continued discussions, both cities have been able to come to an agreement that includes the following items: 1. If either partner City desires to sell excess water to a new 3rd party wholesaler, they may do so by notifying the other City and SSLGC of the proposed sales contract. 2. If a current SSLGC customer desires to purchase additional water, both cities will work to have SSLGC sell the additional water, if excess water is available. 3. If either city anticipates that they will need more water than their annual allotment SSLGC can utilize excess water from the other city to meet this demand (not spoken of in original 1999 agreement). 4. Both cities agree that SSLGC impact fees shall be used to construct a second water take point for Schertz located in south Schertz at the location of our future elevated storage tank. This construction will be done when Schertz requests it which will likely be in conjunction with the construction of the parallel pipeline. If Seguin moves forward selling SSLGC water it will provide a much greater benefit in current rates to Seguin as compared to Schertz, however, this agreement does allow Seguin to attempt to achieve an effective rate closer to the one Schertz enjoys. Additionally, it insures that current SSLGC customers will continue to work with SSLGC and that any customers that Seguin or Schertz can contract with will have an overall benefit to the entire organization. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact this fiscal year. If any excess water sales contracts are entered into by any party to this agreement, it may create a reduction in planned water rate increases in the coming years. Staff recommends City Council authorize entering into the proposed agreement between Schertz, Seguin and SSLGC that provides direction for future excess water sales and for a second water take point for Schertz. IrY1 VON o1011DILIY1((.y Resolution No. 18 -R -24 Tri -party amendment to original 1999 SSLGC formation agreement Water rate models based upon additional water sales possible scenarios Letter of request for approval of additional water sales from Seguin Mayor 1999 SSLGC formation agreement RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -24 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SEGUIN AND THE SCHERTZ SEGUIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION (SSLGC) REGARDING THE SALE OF EXCESS SSLGC WATER AND OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City of Seguin has requested approval from the City of Schertz for the City of Seguin to enter into a contract(s) with a Yd party wholesaler for the sale of SSLGC excess water as is required in the founding documents of the SSLGC; and, WHEREAS, both Cities and SSLGC have come to agreement that if either City desires to enter into a contract with a new 3rd party wholesaler for the purchase of excess SSLGC water no additional approval is necessary and that if a current customer approaches either City to inquire about purchasing more excess water that they will be directed to SSLGC for this additional sale; and WHEREAS, both Cities and SSLGC have come to agreement that if either City is expected to exceed the amount of water available to them in their annual allotment that SSLGC may use excess water in the other City's allotment to overcome this deficit; and WHEREAS, both Cities and SSLGC have come to agreement that the construction of a second delivery point for the City of Schertz is an appropriate use of SSLGC impact fees and that this construction should take place when requested by the City of Schertz; and WHEREAS, city staff has worked with the City of Seguin and SSLGC to construct the attached agreement that is acceptable to all three parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the attached agreement to establish expectations on excess water sales and other matters in connection therewith; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS rw Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes entering into the agreement in substantially the same form as attached. Section 2. The City Council, by this authorization gives approval to the City of Seguin to sell excess water from their annual allotment to a 3rd party wholesaler as stipulated in the 1999 agreement and the attached agreement once executed. Section 3. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made a part of this Resolution for all purposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the City Council. Section 4. All resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict or inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, and the provisions of this Resolution shall be and remain controlling as to the matters resolved herein. Section 5. This Resolution shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America. Section 6. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of this Resolution and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall nevertheless be valid, and the City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been enacted without such invalid provision. Section 7. It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 8. This Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its final passage, and it is so resolved. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of March, 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael R. Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF GUADALUPE § Tri- Lateral Agreement Relating to the Water Sales This Tri - Lateral Agreement Relating to the Water Sales ( "Agreement ") is executed by and among the City of Schertz, Texas ( "Schertz "), the City of Seguin, Texas ( "Seguin "), and the Schertz/Seguin Local Government Corporation ( "SSLGC ") as of , 2018 (the "Effective Date "). Schertz and Seguin are both Texas home -rule cities and the SSLGC is a Texas non - profit, public corporation created by and to act on behalf of Schertz and Seguin pursuant to Subchapter D of Chapter 431 (Sections 431.101 - 431.109) of the Texas Transportation Code and other applicable law each of which is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the authority as further described below. Schertz, Seguin, and the SSLGC are jointly referred to as the "Parties," and individually, each a "Party." Recitals: 1. The Parties entered into an agreement captioned "Regional Water Supply Contract" dated November 15, 1999 that addressed the financing, construction, and operation of a regional water supply project benefitting Schertz and Seguin (the "1999 Agreement "). Sometimes herein Schertz and Seguin are referred to as the "Cities ". 2. The 1999 Agreement provides the contractual authority for the SSLGC to operate, maintain, and manage the SSLGC utility system on a regional basis for the direct benefit of the residents and ratepayers of Schertz and Seguin and with respect to their respective utility systems. 3. The Parties intend for this Agreement to be evidence of their respective approvals and consents required by Section 2.08 of the 1999 Agreement, as follows: (i) the reallocation of costs of an additional point of delivery for Schertz pursuant to Section 2.14 of the 1999 Agreement; (ii) the supply of water to other persons and /or third party wholesalers pursuant to Section 2.16 of the 1999 Agreement; and (iii) the sharing of each Party's capacity as set forth in Section 2.15 of the 1999 Agreement (but not the respective obligation of Schertz and Seguin to the holders of SSLGC's bonds pursuant to Section 3.01 of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Schertz and Seguin may each enter into contracts to supply water to third party wholesalers and /or other persons who currently do not have a contract with the SSLGC, provided, however, to the extent SSLGC is the source for the water supplied by the city under such contract, upon compliance with the 1999 Agreement and other applicable law the city entering into such contract shall be responsible, as among the Parties, for having 3842/32 #254175 FINAL 03 -09 -2018 the proportionate capacity of water available in SSLGC facilities to satisfy the requirements under such contract, together with the requirements of the city entering into such contract. Prior to entering into such contract, Schertz or Seguin, as appropriate shall notify SSLGC as to the amount of water anticipated to be sold so that the capacity to provide the additional water supplies can be verified and the corresponding sales can be calculated into future rate setting by SSLGC. 2. Should any third party wholesaler and /or other person with an existing water supply contract with SSLGC desire additional SSLGC water and SSLGC has the capacity to supply the additional water, SSLGC will enter into such an agreement and not Schertz or Seguin individually. In compliance with Sections 3.09 and 8.01 of the 1999 Agreement and Section 38 of the SSLGC bond resolution (the "Bond Resolution ") adopted on October 20, 2016 authorizing the issuance of obligations designated as Schertz /Seguin Local Government Corporation Contract Revenue Bonds, New Series 2016 (Texas Water Development Board SWIRFT Project Financing), dated August 1, 2016, in the principal amount of $43,670,000 (the "Outstanding Bonds ") the Parties acknowledge that no more than 10% of the capacity of the System (as defined in the Bond Resolution) may be contractually sold on a long -term basis to any private party or entity or to any agency of the federal government in order to protect and preserve the tax - exempt status on the Outstanding Bonds. 3. In compliance with the 1999 Agreement, the Parties agreed that an additional point of delivery requested by Schertz, to be located in the general vicinity of the southern area of Schertz, would be installed by the SSLGC and that Schertz would pay the costs of installing the point of delivery in accordance with Section 2.14 of the 1999 Agreement. The Parties now agree that the prior arrangement shall be modified and that the SSLGC will pay the cost of installing the point of delivery from the SSLGC's fund receiving the proceeds from impact fees paid by Schertz and Seguin. The Parties acknowledge the current balance of such fund is sufficient to pay the cost of installation, but should the amount of the funds be inadequate, then Schertz will pay for the installation costs of the point of delivery in excess of the funds available to SSLGC in the impact fee fund. 4. Schertz and Seguin agree that each of the Cities, as well as the SSLGC, is allowed to share or use any available proportionate allocations of the other city's 50% share of the groundwater produced from the existing wells located in Gonzales County producing water from the Carrizo Aquifer (the "Gonzales Wellfield ") in the Gonzales Wellfield with each other and with SSLGC to provide the water production, treatment, and transmission capacity from the Gonzales Wellfield required to satisfy the requirements of Schertz and Seguin and the requirements of the supply of water to third party wholesalers and /or other persons as may be allowed pursuant to this Agreement and the 1999 Agreement until that availability does not exist. The Cities and SSLGC shall be notified as early as possible that using more than a member City's allocation may be necessary so that all Parties can plan accordingly. 2 3842/32 #254175 FINAL 03 -09 -2018 5. The general provisions of the 1999 Agreement, as set forth in Article VIII, sections 8.01 through 8.22, are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if set forth verbatim herein. 6. This Agreement is not intended to amend and should not be construed to amend the 1999 Agreement, its covenants or obligations entered into in connection therewith, or any other existing agreements, specifically including but not limited to agreements with the Texas Water Development Board. To the extent any provision of this Agreement irreconcilably conflicts with a provision of any existing agreement to which SSLGC is a party, the provisions of such other agreement shall prevail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto acting under authority of their respective governing bodies have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the Effective Date. Attest: Secretary, Board of Directors Attest: City Secretary Attest: City Secretary SCHERTZ/SEGUIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION la President, Board of Directors CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS in Mayor CITY OF SEGUIN, TEXAS M- Mayor 3 3842/32 #254175 FINAL 03-09-2018 FY 2018 -2019 Water Rate Plan Update Preliminary FY 2019 rate analysis results Impact of "New Customer" water purchases on SSLGC and customers: ❖ Scenario 1 — SSLGC sells 2000 AF directly to New Customer ❖ Scenario 2 — SSLGC sells 2,000 AF to Seguin who resells to New Customer ❖ Scenario 3 — same as #2 with debt service MUMMM= 12COM= Updated models for FY 2019 revised volume forecast Updated models for FY 2019 preliminary budget Most significant change: the assumption that if New Customer were to purchase water from SSLGC, then a portion of SSLGC's existing debt service could reasonably be allocated to New Customer w1 LLQAN I Economists,,com Page: 3 MMCMM= V1 ILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 4 Source: Walker Partners Schertz Universal Seguin City Selma Existing Take or, Pay Selma 2015 Springs Hill Acre Feet of Billed Water SAWS -- SAWS -- Tier 1 Tier 2 New Cust Total Gonzales Total Guadalupe Total 2019 5,595 3,298 - 501 250 560 10,992 500 1,000 22,696 22,696 2020 5,763 3,331 - 520 250 560 11,000 500 2,000 23,924 23,924 2021 5,936 3,381 - 541 250 560 11,000 125 2,000 23,793 - 23,793 2022 3,874 3,431 - 562 250 560 11,000 2,0€10 21,677 2,240 23,917 2023 4,057 3,431 - 585 250 560 11,000 - 2,000 21,883 2,240 24,123 2024 4,246 3,483 - 608 250 560 11,000 - 2,000 22,147 2,240 24,387 2025 4,441 3,483 - 633 250 560 11,000 - 2,000 22,367 2,240 24,607 V1 ILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 4 Source: Walker Partners MGD of Billed Water MMCMM= 2026 4.08 316 0.58 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.36 1,79 22.15 2027 4.21 3.20 0.60 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.55 1.79 22.34 2028 4.33 3.25 0.62 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.74 1.79 22.53 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 5 Source: Walker Partners Schertz Universal Seguin City Selma Existing Take or Pay Selma 2015 Springs Hill SAWS -- Tier 1 SAWS -- Tier 2 Guadalupe Water Total Status Quo New Cust Total 2019 4.99 2.94 - 0.45 0.22 0.50 9.81 0.45 19.37 039 20.26 2020 5.14 2.97 - 0.46 0.22 0.50 9.82 0.45 19.57 1.79 21.36 2021 5.30 3.02 - 0.48 0.22 0.50 9.82 OAI 19.46 119 21.24 2022 3.46 3.06 - 0.50 0.22 0.50 9.82 ZOO 19.57 1.79 21.35 2023 3.62 3.06 - 0.52 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 19.75 119 21.54 2024 3.79 311 - 0.54 0.22 0.50 9.82 2,00 19.99 1.79 21.77 2025 3.96 3.11 - 0.57 0.22 0.50 9.82 ZOO 20.18 119 21.97 2026 4.08 316 0.58 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.36 1,79 22.15 2027 4.21 3.20 0.60 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.55 1.79 22.34 2028 4.33 3.25 0.62 0.22 0.50 9.82 2.00 20.74 1.79 22.53 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 5 Source: Walker Partners MUMMM= FY FY FY FY FY FY 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Operating $ 7,840,760 $ 8,125, 892 $ 8,484,383 $ 9,167, 433 $ 9,651,896 $ 10,180, 607 Capital Outlays 1,400, 000 1,400, 000 1,400, 000 1,400, 000 1,150, 000 1,150, 000 Debt Service 9,591,421 9,581,089 9,587,700 9,569,950 9,576,872 9,571,652 Total Cost of Service 18, 832,181 19,106, 981 19, 472, 083 20,137, 383 20, 378, 768 20, 902, 259 NOTE: Based on preliminary FY 2019 budget; subject to revision *�'WILLDAN I Economists.com Page: 6 Impact on SSLGC 1 4rar � Y' ❖ No operating rate increases for 4 years and nominal increases afterwards Impact on Schertz ❖ Due to lower operating rate and allocation of part of debt service to NC, total cost of SSLGC water declines by $2,898,969 over next 6 years Impact on Seguin ❖ Due to lower operating rate and allocation of part of debt service to NC, total cost of SSLGC water declines by $3,013,346 over next 6 years ❖ Seguin receives additional revenue from "wheeling charges" *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 7 Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O&M $ Water Lease Total Per 1,000 Gal Scenario I -- SSLGC Sells to NC Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O&M $ Water Lease Total Per 1,000 Gal 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Current Oct-18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 Oct-22 Oct-23 038 $ 0.89 $ Mi $ 0.95 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 $ 1.04 0.73 0,73 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0,76 1.61 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.74 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 073 0.73 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.64 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 8 0.95 0.73 1.68 Total Annual Payments O &M Debt Service Total Total Annual Payments O &M Debt Service Total Total Total Total Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 MMCMM= Total Total 2023 2024 $ 2,953,333 $ 3,098,501 $ 3,288,228 $ 3,835,475 $ 4,044,778 $ 4,329,845 4,150,011 4,152,130 4,249,691 4,207,976 4,216,505 4,224,343 7,103,344 7,250,631 7,537,918 8,043,451 8,261,283 8,554,188 $ 2,935,103 $ 3,023,386 $ 3,114,145 $ 3,703,927 $ 3,919,889 $ 4,163,829 3,936,562 3,765,625 3,842,380 3,722,594 3,737,656 3,755,073 6,871,664 6,789,011 6,956,524 7,426,521 7,657,545 7,918,902 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 9 Status Quo Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total z3= Total Total 2019 2020 MMCMM= Total Total Total Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 1,741,152 $ 1,790,926 $ 1,872,894 $ 1,922,951 $ 1,945,311 $ 2,042,890 2,434,434 2,439,278 2,537,972 2,508,766 2,518,280 2,524,035 4,175,586 4,230,204 4,410,866 4,431,717 4,463,591 4,566,925 1,730,404 $ 1,747,510 $ 1,773,741 $ 1,799,972 $ 1,833,511 $ 1,906,698 2,217,138 2,045,973 2,123,677 2,012,703 2,029,185 2,045,032 3,947,542 3,793,483 3,897,417 3,812,675 3,862,697 3,951,730 Economists,,com Page: 10 MMMMM= Wheeling Charges — reimbursement to Seguin for water using Seguin distribution system to get to NC 2 alternative methods for assessing wheeling charges: ❖ Financial /Ratemaking — calculate based on percent of distribution system used and useful in providing wheeling service ❖ Engineering — calculate electricity and other specific costs of lines and towers used for wheeling service *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 11 Total Distribution Cost/1,000 Gal $ Seguin Distribution System Total Inch Miles Used and Useful to Wheeling Total Inch Miles Percent NECOM= 1.35 6,031,917 10.9% Total Wheeling Cost/1,000 Gal $ 0.15 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 12 MUCOM= 3,013,345 537,654 $ 3,550,999 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 13 Sales Savings from Wheeling Acre Feet Gallons SSLGC Revenue Total 2019 1,000 325,851,000 $ 228,044 $ 48,878 $ 276,922 2020 2,000 651,702,000 436,721 97,755 534,476 2021 2,000 651,702,000 513,448 97,755 611,203 2022 2,000 651,702,000 619,042 97,755 716,797 2023 2,000 651,702,000 600,895 97,755 698,650 2024 2,000 651,702,000 615,195 97,755 712,950 3,013,345 537,654 $ 3,550,999 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 13 Impact on SSLGC ❖ Annual operating rate increases lower; same as Scenario 1 Impact on Schertz 1 4rar � Y' ❖ Lower total cost of SSLGC water due to lessened operating rate increases, but no benefit from debt reallocation Impact on Seguin ❖ Higher expenses from SSLGC due to purchases for resale to NC ❖ But more than offset by Seguin water sales to NC *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 14 Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O &M $ Water Lease _ Total Per 1,000 Gal Scenario 2 -- Seguin Sells to NC Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O &M $ Water Lease _ Total Per 1,000 Gal 1 4rar � Y' 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Current Oct -18 Oct -19 Oct -20 Oct -21 Oct -22 Oct -23 0.88 $ 0.89 $ 0.91 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 $ 1.04 073 0.73 074 0.75 075 0.75 076 1.61 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.74 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.95 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.64 1.68 qj(WILLDAN I Economists.com . NOTE: same as Scenario 1 Page: 15 Total Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total Total Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total Total Total Total 2019 2020 2021 Total 2022 MMCMM= Total Total 2023 2024 2,953,333 $ 3,098,501 $ 3,288,228 $ 3,835,475 $ 4,044,778 $ 4,329,845 4,150,011 4,152,130 4,249,691 4,207,976 4,216,505 4,224,343 7,103,344 7,250,631 7,537,918 8,043,451 8,261,283 8,554,188 2,935,103 $ 3,023,386 $ 3,114,145 $ 3,703,927 $ 3,919,889 $ 4,163,829 4,185,858 4,215,586 4,298,251 4,273,664 4,279,660 4,284,277 7,120,961 7,238,972 7,412,396 7,977,591 8,199,549 8,448,106 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 16 Status Quo Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total MMCMM= Total Total Total Total Total Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1,741,152 $ 1,790,926 $ 1,872,894 $ 1,922,951 $ 1,945,311 $ 2,042,890 2,434,434 2,439,278 2,537,972 2,508,766 2,518,280 2,524,035 4,175,586 4,230,204 4,410,866 4,431,717 4,463,591 4,566,925 2,254,817 $ 2,796,750 $ 2,822,981 $ 2,849,212 $ 2,902,303 $ 3,001,557 2,466,436 2,495,934 2,579,548 2,563,773 2,571,189 2,574,236 4,721,253 5,292,684 5,402,529 5,412,985 5,473,492 5,575,793 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 17 Im Im ME ME ME mocmm= M,R 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 18 NECOM= Revenue Marginal Sales from Sales Cost of Gross Acre Feet Gallons to NC SSLGC Margin 2019 1,000 325,851,000 $ 1,078,567 $ (545,667) $ 532,900 2020 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (1,062,480) 1,094,654 2021 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (991,663) 1,165,471 2022 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (981,268) 1,175,866 2023 2,000 651,702,000 2,222,304 (1,009,901) 1,212,403 2024 2,000 651,702,000 2,287,474 (1,008,868) 1,278,606 $ 12,059,746 $ (5,599,847) $ 6,459,899 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 19 Impact on SSLGC ❖ Annual operating rate increases lower; same as Scenario 1 and 2 Impact on Schertz 1 4rar � Y' ❖ Lower total cost of SSLGC water due to lessened operating rate increases ❖ Addition of NC to Seguin totals will mean Seguin takes a higher percentage of water from Gonzales shed; Schertz pays less debt service Impact on Seguin ❖ Higher expenses from SSLGC due to purchases for resale to NC ❖ Higher expenses more than offset by water sales to NC, but benefit not as great as Scenario 2 W1 LLQAN I Economists.com Page: 20 9 0 60,0% /- 58.4% q r, 57.2% CC AOI ME IMMOM= 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 MSchertz ESeguin NC Schertz moves 2.0 mgd to Guadalupe *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 21 Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O &M $ Water Lease _ Total Per 1,000 Gal Scenario 3 -- Seguin Sells to NC; Pr Operating Rate Per 1,000 Gal O &M $ Water Lease _ Total Per 1,000 Gal 1 4rar � Y' 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Current Oct -18 Oct -19 Oct -20 Oct -21 Oct -22 Oct -23 0.88 $ 0.89 $ 0.91 $ 0.95 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 $ 1.04 0,73 0.73 074 0.75 075 075 0.76 1.61 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.74 it 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.95 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.64 1.68 JVWILLDAN I Economistscom . NOTE: same as Scenario 1 Page: 22 Total Annual Payments O &M Debt Service Total Total Annual Payments O &M Debt Service Total MMCMM= Total Total Total Total Total Total 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $ 2,953,333 $ 3,098,501 $ 3,288,228 $ 3,835,475 $ 4,044,778 $ 4,329,845 4,150,011 4,152,130 4,249,691 4,207,976 4,216,505 4,224,343 7,103,344 7,250,631 7,537,918 8,043,451 8,261,283 8,554,188 #roPortional Debt $ 2,935,103 $ 3,023,386 $ 3,114,145 $ 3,703,927 $ 3,919,889 $ 4,163,829 4,509,154 4,312,778 4,424,755 3,844,576 3,907,225 3,956,888 7,444,257 7,336,163 7,538,900 7,548,504 7,827,115 8,120,717 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 23 Status Quo Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total Annual Payments O&M Debt Service Total z3= Total Total 2019 2020 MMCMM= Total Total Total Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 1,741,152 $ 1,790,926 $ 1,872,894 $ 1,922,951 $ 1,945,311 $ 2,042,890 2,434,434 2,439,278 2,537,972 2,508,766 2,518,280 2,524,035 4,175,586 4,230,204 4,410,866 4,431,717 4,463,591 4,566,925 2,254,817 $ 2,796,750 $ 2,822,981 $ 2,849,212 $ 2,902,303 $ 3,001,557 2,143,140 2,398,743 2,453,044 2,992,860 2,943,624 2,901,625 4,397,957 5,195,492 5,276,025 5,842,072 5,845,927 5,903,182 Economists,,com Page: 24 NECOM= Revenue Marginal Sales from Sales Cost of Gross Acre Feet Gallons to NC SSLGC Margin 2019 1,000 325,851,000 $ 1,078,567 $ (222,371) $ 856,196 2020 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (965,288) 1,191,846 2021 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (865,159) 1,291,975 2022 2,000 651,702,000 2,157,134 (1,410,355) 746,779 2023 2,000 651,702,000 2,222,304 (1,382,335) 839,969 2024 2,000 651,702,000 2,287,474 (1,336,257) 951,217 $ 12,059,746 $ (6,181,765) $ 5,877,981 *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 25 mmmmm= Benefit to Benefit to Cost to Schertz Seguin NC Scenario 1 $ 2,898,969 $ 3,550,999 $ 11,927,484 SSLGC Sells to NC Scenario 2 370,858 1 6,459,899 1 12,059,746 Seguin Sells to NC Scenario 3 1,276,073 1 5,877,981 1 12,059,746 Seguin Sells to NC; Debt Proportional *"WILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 26 ar 1NILLDAN I Economists,,com Page: 27 U=EMR=, Re: Request by the City of Seguin to Resell Water to Third Party Wholesalers Dear Mayor Carpenter: The City of Seguin (Seguin) is requesting written consent from the City of Schertz (Schertz) to allow Seguin to resell a portion of Seguin's allocation • the SSLGC water to third party wholesalers. In considering this request, I would like to provide the following- Prior to the Schertz and Seguin entering into a Regional Water Supply Contract with the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation (SSLGC) in 1999, Seguin sold water to the Springs Hill Water Supply Corporation (SHWSC) under a wholesale water contract. Due to SSLGC being a start-up corporation, there was a need for the corporation to establish water sales to generate revenues for its operation, so Seguin forwent its contract with SHWSC, and the revenue it generated. so that SSLGC could sell water ts splitting the required debt service payments each year 50-50. As contained in the SSLGC staff report at the January 2o18 Board meeting, Seguin only used 50% • its allocation in calendar year 2017. It is not anticipated that this will increase significantly over the next few years. Seguin's service area is completely surrounded • SHWSC and Crystal Clear Water Supply Corporation, so there is not additional service area to grow into and increase sales. P. 0. Box 591 205 N. River St. . Seguin, Tx 78156-0591 . www.seguintexas.gov I U KT C—MT cr Pro(McF7767 F 7=7 , 7117 L11711,771W • Ot•;UIII, all three entities, Schertz, SSLGC, and Seguin benefit from the added sales and revenues. Therefore, Seguin would respectfully request written consent of from Schertz to allow Seguin resell a portion of Seguin's contracted water from the SSLGC. This same approval is being ma of the Schertz Seguin Local Government Corporation. I- C.c. Brian James DudleyWaite P. 0. Box 591 205 N. River St. Seguin, Tx 78156-0591 . www.seguintexas.gov L I R orM MUM VJI-MREASI Subchapter D of Chapter 431 (Sections 431.101-431.109) of the Texas Transportation Code, as amended (the "Act") authorizes local governments to create local government corporations to aid, assist, and act an behalf of local governments; and WHEREAS, the Cities, pursuant to the Act and other applicable law, have authorized �he cyc-86-4n hz including the issuance of bonds to finance the costs of the water utility,system; and WBEREAS, the Corporation intends to design, construct, maintain, and operate the wat potential purchasers on a regional basis; and V,rFMREAS, the Cities and the Corporation, exercising their mutual authority and furthering their mutual and urgent interests, wish to enter into this Contract in order to most efficiently and quickly obtain the capability to deliver the water to the Cities; and .594033.6 WHMAS, it is expected by the Corporation and the Cities that as soon as practicable after the execution of this Contract the Corporation will issue its Bonds (as hereinafter defined), payable from and secured solely by payments to be made by the Cities under this Contract for the acquisition and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Corporation, to the best of its ability, shall in general do or cause to be done all such things as may be required for the proper acquisition, construction and operation of the Project; and NOW, TEFIWFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Cities and the Corporation mutually undertake, promise, and agree as follows: ,. . In addition to the terms defined above, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them below wherever they are used in this Contract, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Accountant" means a nationally recognized independent certified public accountant, or an independent firm of certified public accountants, selected by the Corporation. "Annual Payments" means the amount of money, constituting the Bond Payment, Operation and Maintenance Expenses, and Overhead Expenses, to be paid to the Corporation by each City, on a several and not a joint basis as described in Section 3.01, Section 3.05, and Section 5,02 hereof from the revenues of the Cities' System as an operating and maintenance expense of the Cities' System (or any other lawfully available revenues of the Cities), at the times and in the amounts required by Sections 3.05 and 5.02 of this Contract. "Approval Certificate" means the certificate or certificates, if any, of the President, Board of Directors or Authorized Representative of the Corporation approving certain terms of a series of Bonds. "Authorized Representative" means any person at the time delegated authority to act on behalf of the Cities or the Corporation, as the case may be, and designated as such in a written certificate, containing a specimen signature of such person, which, for the Cities shall be the City Manager of each of the Cities or such other officers or employees of the Cities authorized to act on m behalf of the Cities during the respective City Manager's absence or incapacity, and for the Corporation shall be the President, Board of Directors of the Corporation or such other officer or 594033.6 -2- employee of the Corporation authorized to act on behalf of the Corporation during the President's, Board of Directors absence orincapacity, unless aparty notifies the otherparty in writing of a change in its Authorized Representative. "Bond Payment" means the amount of money to be paid to the Corporation by the Cities, on a several basis, from the revenues of the Citias'System as an operating and maintenance expense of the Cities' System at the times and in the amounts required by Sections 3.05 and 5.02 of this Contract. "Bond Resolution" means any resolution and/or trust indenture of the Corporation, authorizing the issuance of and securing the Bonds and all amendments and supplements thereto and including the Approval Certificate, if any, authorized by such resolution to establish certain of the terms of the Bonds authorized by such resolution. "Bonds" means all bonds, notes, or other obligations hereafter issued by the Corporation, whether in one or more series or issues, to pay the cost of the Project (including any bonds or not", issued to complete the Project) or to refund any Bonds or to refund any such refunding Bonds. "Cities" moans collectively the City of Schertz, Texas and City of Seguin, Texas. "Cities' System" means and includes each of the. City's existing combined waterworks and wastewater disposal system and any electric power and/ornatural gas system, together with all future extensions, improvements, enlargements, and additions thereto, including, to the extent permitted by law, storm sewer and drainage and/or reclaimed water systems within the waterworks or wastewater disposal system, and all replacements thereof, provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, and to the extent now or hereafter authorized or permitted by law, the term Cities' System shall not include any waterworks, wastewater, electric power, or natural gas facilities which are declared by the Cities not to be a part of the Cities' System and which are hereafter acquired or constructed by the Cities with the proceeds from the issuance of "Special Facilities Bonds ", which are hereby defined as being special revenue obligations of the Cities which are not secured by or payable from the net revenues of the Cities' System, but which are secured by and are payable solely from special contract revenues, or payments received from the Cities or any other legal entity, or any combination thereof, in connection with such facilities; and such revenues or payments shall not be considered as or constitute gross revenues of the Cities' System, unless and to the extent otherwise provided in the ordinance or ordinances authorizing the issuance of such "Special Facilities Bonds". "Cities Utility Bonds" means the appropriate City's bonds and notes outstanding from time to time secured by a lien on and pledge of the net revenues of the Cities' System or any part thereof, regardless of lien priority. "City Engineer of Record" means the City Engineer of Record so designated by the City Council of each City with notice to the Corporation. 594033.6 -3- "Claim", as used in Section 8.13 of this Contract, means claims, demands, and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any amendments thereto, as in force and effect on the date of delivery of any series of Bonds. , "Completion Date" means such term as it is defined in Section 2.09 of this Contract. "Corporation" means the Schortz/Seguin Local Government Corporation and its lawful successors and assigns. "Credit Agreement" means any bond insurance policy or other credit agreement, as defined in and authorized by the provisions of Chapter 1371, as amended, exas Government Code (formerly Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated Article 717q, as amended), which the Corporation enters into relating to its obligations with respect to the Bonds. "Delivery Point" means the place, whether one ormore, to which the Corporation will deliver water to each City pursuant to this Contract. "Engineering Report" means the "Preliminary Engineering Report for Water Supply System to Serve the Cities of Schertz and Seguin, prepared by Clay RDming, P.E., dated September 10, 1999, as such report may be amended, modified and changed and superseded with the approval of the Corporation and Cities, at any tinge prior to the execution of construction contracts far the Project or as modified and changed by change orders issued after the execution of such construction contracts; provided, however, no such change orders shall adversely affect either of the Cities without the consent of the Cities. "Fiscal Year" means the Cities'fiscal years, which currently begins on October 1 of each year, as it may be changed from time to time with notice to the Corporation. "Force Maieure" means such term as it is defi-ned in Section 8.03 of this Contract. "Facilities" means the facilities, lines, booster pumps, and other appurtenances sufficient to deliver the water to which the Cities are entitled under this Contract and any improvements, additions, or extensions to such Facilities hereafter acquired or constructed to deliver water between such places. "Land Interests" means the easements, right-of-way, and other interests in real property necessary for the acquisition, construction, and operation of the Facilities and the Water Rights for the Project, "MSR13" means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and any successorto its duties. 504033.6 -4- "NRMSM!'means each person whom the SEC or its staff has determined to be a nationally recognized municipal securities information repository within the meaning of the Rule from time to time. "Operation and Maintenance Expenses" means all direct costs and expenses incurred by the Corporation for its operation and maintenance, including but not limited to, the operation and maintenance of the Project, including (for greater certainty but without limiting the generality of the foregoing) amounts payable under any contract with any person, including, but not limiltd to any federal, state, or local agency for the right to produce and use groundwater or other source of water, any contribution or payment in lieu of taxes or any fee or charge by any government authority relating to the Corporation's production of groundwater or sale of treated water hereunder, the costs of utilities, supervision, engineering, accounting, auditing, legal services, insurance premiums, supplies, services, and administration of the Project, Overhead Expenses, and costs of operating, repairing, maintaining, and replacing equipment forproper operation and maintenance of thaProject. The term "Operation and Maintenance Expenses" does not include depreciation charges or such portion of the above-described costs to the extent such costs are paid pursuant to an agreement other than this Contract. "Overhead Expenses" means the Corporation's reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred at any time directly related to the issuance and servicing of the Bonds, the acquisition of Land Interests required for the Project, the design, permitting, financing, acquisition, construction, and ownership of the Project and any other activities required of or involving the Corporation in connection with or attributable to the Project or the Bonds, including, but not limited to: (a) per them and reimbursable expenses incurred by the Directors of the Corporation for special meetings of the Corporation's Board of Directors related to the Project; (b) services of the professional, technical skilled and unskilled persons and firms engaged by or associated with the Corporation, other than Corporation staff personnel, together with their reimbursable expenses paid or required to be paid by the Corporation; (c) salaries of the Corporation's staff attributable to the Project or the Bonds based on time expended, as documented or reasonably estimated by the President, Board of Directors of the Corporation; (d) the costs of preparing applications for and obtaining all approvals and authorizAtions required for the Projector the Bonds from the regulatory authorities having jurisdiction; (e) the cost of property casualty and public liability insurance incurred prior to the Completion Date; including any insurance deductible charged to or required to be paid by the Corporation; provided that if the Corporation is unable to obtain such insurance on an occurrence 594033.6 .5- basis, then any expense incurred by the Corporation from and after the Completion Date for casualty and public liability insurance, including any insurance deductible, shall be paid by the Cities; (f) all costs incurred in litigation involving or relating to the Project; and (g) any and all other costs and expenses, including out-of-pocket expenses, incurred by the Corporation attributable to the Project or the Bonds, whether enumerated above or not, and whether or not included in the definition or as a part of Project Costs. "Permitted Liens" means: (a) Minor irregularities, charges, liens, encumbrances, defects, easements, licenses, rights-of-way, servitudes, restrictions, mineral rights, and clouds on title which, in the opinion of counsel to the Corporation, a copy of which shall be forwarded to each of the Cities, do not materially impair the use of the Project for the purposes for which it is designed. (b) Basements for roads (as used in this Contract, the term "roads" shall include, without limitation, streets, curbs, gutters, drains, ditches, sewers, conduits, canals, mains, aqueducts, aerators, connections, ramps, docks, viaducts, alleys, driveways, parking areas, walkways, and trackage), utilities (which for purposes of this Contact shall include, without lintitation, water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone, pipeline, railroad, and other collection, transportation, light, beat, power, and communication systems) and similar easements and other easements, rights-of-way, rights of flowage, flooding, diversion or outfall, licenses, restrictions, and obligations relating to the operation of the Project which, in the opinion of counsel to the Corporation, a copy of which shall be forwarded to each of the Cities, do not materially impair the use of the Project for the purposes for which it is designed. (c) Rights of the UnitedStates or any state orpolitical subdivision thereof, orotherpublic or governmental authority or agency or any other entity vested with the power of eminent domain to take or control property, or to terminate any right, power, franchise, grant, license, or permit previously in force. "Plans and Specifications" means the plans and specifications prepared far the Project by the Project Engineer, as the same may be revised from time to time in accordance with this Contract, "Project" means, collectively, the Land Interests and the Facilities as described in the recitals to this Contract and in the Engineering Report. "Project Costs" means and includes, without limitation, the following costs incurred for the Project by or on behalf of the Corporation or the Cities: 194033.6 -6- (a) the cost of acquisition of the Land Interests, including appraisals, closing costs and title insurance policies; (b) the cost of acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, or improvement of the Facilities, and any structure, item of equipment, or other item, used for, or in connection with, the Project; (c) the cost of site preparation of the Land Interests, including demolition or removal of structures and improvements as necessary or incident to accomplishing the Project; (d) the cost of engineering, legal, architectural or other related services; (e) thepreparation costof plans, specifications, studies, surveys, cost estimates, andother expenses necessary or incident to planning, providing, or financing the Project; (f) the cost of machinery, equipment, furnishings; and facilities necessary or incident to placing the Project in operation; (g) finance charges and interest before, during, and after construction as permitted by the laws of the State; (h) costs incurred in connection with financing the project, including, without limitation: (1) financing, legal, accounting, financial advisory, rating agency, and auditing fees, expenses and disbursements; (2) the cost of printing, engraving, and reproduction services; and (3) the cost of a trustees or paying agent's initial or acceptance fee and subsequent fees. (i) all costs, fees and expenses of litigation of all kinds; (j) the cost of property casualty and public liability insurance; (k) the fees and costs of the underwriters as the anticipated purchasers of the Bonds (1) reimbursement of the costs previously incurred by the Cities with respect to the Project; and (m) other costs generally recognized as a part of Project construction costs. 594033.8 -7- "Troject Engineer" means such engineering firm or firms as may be selected by the Corporation. "Prudent Utility Practice" means any of the practices, methods, and acts, in the exercise of reasonable judgment, in the light of the facts, including but not limited to the practices, methods, and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the public utility industry prior thereto, known at the time the decision was made, that would have been expected to accomplish the desired result at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with reliability, safety, and expedition. Itisrecognized that Prudent Utility Practice is not intended to be limited to the optimum practice, method, or act at the exclusion of all others, but rather is a spectrum of possible practices, methods, or acts which could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with reliability, safety, and expedition. In the case of any facility included in the Cities' System which is owned in common with one or more other entities, the term "Prudent Utility Practice", as applied to such facility, shall have the meaning set forth in the agreement governing the operation of such facility, "Rule" means SEC Rule 15c2-12, as amended from time to time. "Sale and Offering Documents" means any official notice of sale, official bid form, preliminary official statement, official statement, or other offering document for the Bonds. "Schertz" means the City of Schertz, Texas, a Texas home rule municipality acting through its City Councilor City Manager. "SEC" means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any successor to its duties. "Seguin" means the City of Seguin, Texas, a Texas home rule municipality acting through its City Council or City Manager. "SID" means any entity designated by the State or an authorized department, officer, or agency thereof as, and determined by the SEC or its staff to be, a state information depository within the meaning of the Rule from time to time. "State" means the State of Texas. "TNRCC" means the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission or its successors or assigns. "Trustee!" means any trustee named under a trust indenture or the paying agent/registrar named in a paying agent/registrar agroement entered into by the Corporation securing the payment of the Bonds and authorized by a Bond Resolution. 594033.6 -8" "TWDB" means the Texas Water Development Board or any successor entity thereto. 'TWD]3 Program" means TWDB's State Participation Account as authorized pursuant to Article M, Sections 49-d, 49-d-2, and 49-d-8 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 16, Subchapters B and F, as amended, Texas Water Code. "WaterRights" means the rightto drill and operatewells, produce groundwater, and transport the groundwater from the county where the groundwater is produced into Guadalupe County and the surrounding counties. Section 1.02. Interpretation. The table of contents and caption headings of this Contract are for reference purposes only and shall not affect its interpretation in any respect. Unless the context otherwise requires, words of the masculine gender shall be construed to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. This Contract and all the terms and provisions shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose set forth herein and to sustain the validity of this Contract. 5pd9j0L2.01. General. Subject to the remaining terms and provisions of this Contract, the Corporation agrees to issue the Bonds and to acquire and construct the Project as generally described in the Engineering Report. It is estimated that the Project will be placed in operation on or before June 1, 2002, or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Authorized Representative, of the Corporation hereby represents that he is not aware of any reason that the Project, as contemplated, cannot be completed on or before June 1, 2002. It is expressly understood and agreed that any obligations on the part of the Corporation to finance, acquire, construct, and complete the Project and to provide the water to the Cities shall be (j) conditioned upon the Corporation's ability to obtain all necessary permits, Land Interests, material, labor, and equipment, and upon the ability of the Corporation to finance the cost of the Project through the actual sale of the Bonds, including any Bonds needed to complete the Project, and (ii) subject to all present and future valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States of America, the State, and any regulatory body having jurisdiction. The Project shall be acquired and constructed by the Corporation with all reasonable dispatch, and the Corporation will diligently pursue such acquisition and construction in order that it may be completed as soon as practicable, delays incident to events of Force Majeure only excepted, but if for any reason there should be delays in or the entire failure of such acquisition, construction, and improvement, there shall be, no diminution in or postponement of the Annual Payments to be made by the Cities hereunder and no resulting liability on the part of the Corporation; provided, however, that the Cities retain the right to pursue any legal remedy to the extent that delays in the Project are the result of negligence or inaction on the part of the Corporation. 594033.6 -9- Sr,t_iqL 19 1, Location of Project- Acauisition of Land Interests. The Facilities will be constructed and located on the Land Interests. The Corporation (or the Cities acting on behalf of the Corporation) shall, as soon as possible after the delivery of this Contract, and subject to the receipt of the Bond proceeds or funds from the Cities, undertake the acquisition of the Land Interests. The Corporation shall be responsible for ensuring that proper filings of each such portion of the Land Interests are made in the deed records of the appropriate counties to ensure that all interested parties have proper notice of the Corporation's interests in the Land Interests. As each deed, easement, or other evidence of an interest in real property comprising a portion of the Land Interests is acquired by the Corporation, a copy of such instrument, together with evidence of its filing in the deed records of the counties in which such portion lies, shall, upon the written request of the Cities, be given to the Cities. The Corporation shall acquire a title insurance policy or a title opinion showing good and indefeasible title with respect to each Land Interest acquired, A copy of each such title insurance policy or title opinion shall be retained in the Corporation's official records. Secg9q_Z,Q3 .Cons ctoion, The Corporation shall, as soon as possible, undertake to make, execute, deliver, and prosecute all contracts, orders, receipts, writings, and instructions with or to other persons, and in general do or cause to be done all such other things, as may be required for the proper acquisition and construction of the Facilities. 594033.6 -10- Section, 2,06. Liens. Neither the Cities nor the Corporation will create or permit or suffer to exist any lien, encumbrance, or charge upon the Project or any interest therein at any time, except Permitted Liens. d .tl , evisions;of plans. The Plans and Specifications may be revised prior to the Completion Date. Section 2A. AppjpyALs. Unless otherwise required by law, each consent, approval, or other official action required of the Cities or the Corporation by any provision of this Contract shall be deemed in compliance with this Contract when written evidence of such action, signed by the respective Authorized Representative, is delivered to the party who is to receive evidence of such action. All contracts to be entered into shall be authorized by the Corporation's Board of Directors. The Cities will cooperate with the Corporation in the design, financing, acquisition, and construction of the Project and, following the adoption of the Bond Resolution by the Corporation's Board of Directors, will not take any action or fail to take any action (including, without limitation, any exercise or denial of its consent or approval of any action proposed to be taken by the Corporation or any of its agents hereunder), if taking or failing to take such action, respectively, would unreasonably delay or obstruct the completion of the Project by the Corporation. i.. . " le�t"o. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section, when the Facilities have been completed, the Corporation shall deliver to the Cities a certificate of the Corporation and the Project Engineer stating that, as of a specified date, the Project has been substantially completed and are ready to be placed in service (the date specified in such certificate being herein called the "Completion Date "). (b) The Cities and the Corporation acknowledge that the proceeds of the initial series of :Bonds will be insufficient to complete the acquisition and construction of the Project, and accordingly agree to use their best efforts to issue Additional Bonds, or to secure financing pursuant to the TWDB Program, in an amount sufficient to complete the Project. SeqjM2 1. ccess, to Cities.- Should any facilities, pipelines, or appurtenances owned by the Corporation be installed in any street, alley, or public way within the boundaries of the Cities, as same are now constituted or as may hereafter be extended, the Cities hereby grant, upon complying with each of the Cities' franchise ordinances or other provisions, to the Corporation the 594033.6 11" right, privilege and franchise of using such streets, alleys and public ways for the purposes of maintaining, operating, laying, repairing, or removing such facilities, pipelines, and appurtenances. Section 2.12. Baggmentg. The Cities hereby agree to grant to the Corporation such easements as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes of placing, constructing, operating, repairing, maintaining, rebuilding, replacing, relocated, and removing water facilities upon, over, across and through the Cities' property and giving to the Corporation, and its successors and assigns, all of the rights and benefits necessary or appropriate for the full enjoyment and use of the easement, including but without limiting the same to, the free right of ingress and egress to and from the Cities' property. Section 2.13. A. Each City acknowledges that it may be necessary for certain of its transmission lines to be utilized in order for the Corporation to transmit treated water to another City or other entity and such City hereby agrees to permit the Corporation to so utilize its transmission lines in accordance with Section 2.11 and Section 2.12. In such case, the City involved agree to inform the Corporation of any special requirements with respect to pressure or other matters relating to the transmitting City's lines. B. The Corporation will furnish, install, operate, and maintain meters at the point bf exit from the City's lines to maintain accurate measurements of the quantity of water being delivered by the Corporation to a City or other entity through the lines of the other City or other entity. Such meters shall be subject to inspection and examination by both the City and the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.02. C. In the event that repairs are required to be made, to any lines of a City which are utilized for the transmission of treated water to another City or other entity, the receiving City shall participate in the cost of such repairs as may be agreed from ti= to time. s �ov.2,L4. koints. The Project will include the Facilities and Land interests required to deliver water to the Point of Delivery for each City at the location depicted in the Engineering Report. After completion of the Project, each City shall have the sole responsibility, at its own cost and expense, for providing additional pipelines and other facilities required for transporting its share of the water from the Project to new or additional Points of Delivery, but additional or alternative points of delivery will be allowed only with the consent of the Cities. Sac-tLon,1,�. Quantity. The Cities' proportionate sham of the. treated groundwater produced by the Project is as follows: schertz 50% Seguin 50% 594033.6 &g1jM2A, tither Contracts. The Corporation shall not enter into contracts with other persons for the supply of water without the prior consent of Cities and either City may withhold its consent. The Cities may not resell water to third party wholesalers (except to such customers that exist on November 1, -1999 and not for resale by these customers) that they purchase from the Corporation without obtaining the written consent of the Corporation and the other City. ection 2.17. Quaylt , The water to be delivered by the Corporation and received by the Cities shall be groundwater produced from wells constructed as part of the Project and treated using the Facilities and equipment described in the Engineering Report. Each of the Cities has satisfied itself that such water is suitable for its needs. The Corporation and each of the Cities shall cooperate, each within its legal powers, in preventing possible pollution and contamination of the formation from which the water is obtained. fiction .1 g. QVqI& i The Corporation covenants to operate the Project in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices and in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Schertz 50% and Seguin 50% (b) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used for the payment of the Project Costs. The Bonds will be issued by the Corporation in the amount anticipated to be required to acquire and construct the Project, including payment of all ]Project Costs advanced by the Cities and incurred by the Corporation prior to the date of issuance of the Bonds, and to fund, to the extent deemed advisable by the Corporation, a debt service reserve fund and interest on the Bonds during construction and for up to one year after the Completion Date. 594033.6 -13- i (1) Each Bond Resolution of the Corporation shall specify the maximum principal amount of the Bonds to be issued thereunder. The Bonds shall mature not more than forty (40) years from the date of such Bonds and shall bear interest at not to exceed the maximum legal rate then permitted by law, and the Bond Resolution may create and provide for the maintenance of a revenue fund, an interest and sinking fund, a debt service reserve fund, and any other funds deemed prudent by the Corporation, all in the manner and amounts as provided in such Bond Resolution. (2) Prior to the final adoption of a Bond Resolution or any amendment of a Bond Resolution by the Corporation's Board of Directors or the execution of an Approval Certificate by the Corporation, a substantially, final copy of the proposed Bond Resolution, the Approval Certificate, if any, and the Sale and Offering Documents shall be presented to the Cities for review and approval, (3) Upon approval by each of the Cities of (i) each Bond Resolution hereafter' adopted by the Corporation, (H) any amendments to any Bond Resolution, (iii) an Approval Certificate authorized by aBond Resolution, and (iv) the Sale and Offering Documents and the delivery to the Corporation of a certification signed by the Authorized Representative of each of the Cities to the effect that the Bond Resolution, including any Approval Certificate, and the Sale and Offering Documents comply with this Contract, then upon the adoption and approval of the Bond Resolution and the Approval Certificate, if any, in such final form by the Corporation's Board of Directors or Authorized Representative, as the case may be, and the issuance and delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser thereof, the Bond Resolution shall for all purposes be considered approved by the Cities and deemed to be in comphance with this Contract in all respects, and the Bonds issued thereunder will constitute Bonds as defined in this Contract for all purposes. Any owner of Bonds is entitled to rely fully and unconditionally on any such approval. (4) All covenants and provisions in the. Bond Resolution affecting, or purporting to bind, the Cities, shall, upon the delivery of the Bonds, become absolute, unconditional, valid, and binding covenants and obligations of the Cities so long as the Bonds and interest thereon are outstanding and unpaid, and may be enforced as provided in this Contract and the Bond Resolution. Particularly, the obligation of each of the Cities to make, promptly when due, all Annual Payments specified in this Contract shall be absolute and unconditional, and said obligation may be enforced as provided in this Contract. In addition, subject to the approval of the Cities, the Corporation may enter into Credit Agreements for the purpose of achieving the lowest financing costs for the Project. aec jfgp 3 ,02. Prg=ds of Bond terms and provisions of this Contract, the. A. Subject to the ten proceeds of the Bonds shall be used by the Corporation for the purpose of financing and funding the 594033.6 -14- Corporation's acquisition and construction of the Project as provided in Section 3.01 and improvements to the Project, The Corporation shall use its best efforts to issue its Bonds, in one or more series, in amounts which will be sufficient to accomplish such purpose. The proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in a construction fund established pursuant to the terms of the Bond Resolution. A trust indenture may be, entered into between the Corporation and a corporate trustee for the purpose of securing the payment of the Bonds. The trust indenture or the Bond Resolution, as appropriate, will establish procedures for the payment of Project Costs out of the construction fund. It is anticipated that the Bonds will be issued pursuant to the Bond Resolution and that a paying agent/registrar agreement will be executed between the Corporation and the Trustee concerning the payment procedures with respect to the Bonds. (a) debt service on the Bonds and related payments and deposits, as follows: (1) principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on, the Bonds, less interest to be paid out of Bond proceeds or from other sources if permitted by any Bond Resolution, and the redemption price of any ]Bonds to be redeemed prior to maturity when and as provided in any Bond Resolution plus the fees, expanses, and, to the extent permitted by law, indemnities of the Trustee, if any, for the Bonds, and those 594033.6 -15- of the paying agent/registrar for paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds and for authenticating, registering, and transferring Bonds on the registration books, and (2) deposits required to be made to any special, contingency, or reserve fund by the provisions of any Bond Resolution; and I (3) any deposit in addition thereto required to restore any deficiency in any of such funds by the provisions of any Bond Resolution, (b) amounts payable by the Corporation under a Credit Agreement; and (c) the fees, expenses, and indemnities (to the extent permitted by law) of the remarketing agent, rate setting agent, authentication agent, arbitrage rebate compliance fim, and tender agent, if any, for -the Bonds. Section 3.06. Aj ties not more than once UjAg. The Corporation will render bills to the Ci each month, commencing April 5, 2000, for the current payments required by this Contract. The Corporation shall, until further notice, render such bills on or before the 5th day of each month and such bills shall be due and payable on the 15th day of each month or ten (10) days after such bill is deposited into the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed to the Cities whicheveris later and thereafter, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall accrue thereon at the rate of ten per cent (10%) per annum until paid in full. The Corporation may, however, from time to time by sixty (60) days' written notice change the date by which it shall render bills, and ail bills shall thereafter be due and payable ten (10) days after such dates as herein provided. The Cities shall make all payments in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the time of payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts and shall make payment to the Corporation as its office in Guadalupe County, Texas or at such other place as the Corporation may from time to time designate by sixty (60) days' written notice. SMi gn . Dolinguency in Payment. If either of the Cities fails to pay any bills when due and payable, the Corporation may give written notice of such delinquency to the City and if all bills doe and unpaid, including interest thereon, are not paid within forty-five (45) days after delivery of such notice, then the City agrees that the Corporation shall be authorized, as its option, to institute suit for collection thereof and to collect any amounts due and unpaid, together with interest thereon and reasonable attomeys'fees, and the City further agrees that the Corporation may, as its option discontinue providing water to the City until all amounts due and unpaid are paid in full with interest as herein specified. Any such discontinuation of service shall not, however, relieve the City of its unconditional obligations to make the payments required by this Contract. It is also hereby expressly recognized that the nondefaulting City shall have no obligation to make any payments for the benefit of the defaulting City. $94D33.6 -16- Section 3.B8, Co ration's Rights Assined to Trustee. The Cities are advised and recognize that as security for the payment of the Bonds, the Corporation may assign to the Trustee, pursuant to one or more trust indentures (or paying agent/registrar agreements) to be authorized by the Bond Resolution, the Corporation ls rights under this Contract, including the right to receive the Annual Payments hereunder (but not the right to receive payments, if any, under Section 8.13 hereof). The Cities herewith assent to such assignment and will make the Annual Payments directly to the Trustee without defense or set -off by reason of any dispute between one or both of the Cities and the Corporation or the Trustee. All rights against the Cities arising under this Contractor the Bond Resolution and assigned to the Trustee may be enforced by the Trustee, or the owners of the Bonds, to the extent provided in the Bond Resolution, and the Trustee, or the owners of the Bonds, shall be entitled to bring any suit, action, or proceeding against the Cities, to the extent provided in the Bond Resolution, for the enforcement of this Contract, and it shall not be necessary in any such suit, action, or proceeding to make the Corporation a party thereto. 5ggiWD 3.09, Tax-Exempt Bonds. The parties hereto understand and agree that the Corporation will use its best efforts to provide for, but will not be liable for a failure to produce, the lowest overall debt service cost for the Bonds to be issued for the Project. Jn connection therewith, the parties intend that the Corporation will issue Bonds the interest on which is excludable from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. The parties hereto acknowledge their understanding that the federal income tax laws impose certain restrictions on the use and investment of proceeds of such tax-exempt bonds and on the use of the property financed therewith and the output produced therefrom. Accordingly, the parties agree and covenant that if the Bonds are offered to investors with the understanding that the interest will be exempt from federal income taxation, then the parties, their assigns and agents, will take such action to assure, and refrain from such action which will adversely affect the treatment of such Bonds as obligations described in section 103 of the Code. Should any party fail to comply with such covenant, the effect of which being that the Bonds no longer qualify as obligations described in the Code, such defaulting party shall be, liable for all costs resulting from the loss of the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. The parties hereby agree and covenant to comply with all of the representations and covenants relating to such exemption which are set out in any Bond Resolution. The parties further agree and covenant that in the event the Bonds issued are to be. tax-exempt, they will modify such agreements, make, such filings, restrict the yield an investments, and take such other action necessary to fulfill the applicable provisions of the Code. For these purposes, the parties may rely on the respective opinion of any firm of nationally-recognized bond attorneys selected by them. In the event that a conflict arises in the opinions of the respective firms of each of the parties, the parties will identify a different firm, that is mutually acceptable to all parties, in order to resolve the conflict of opinion. Sectioa3a. l!avanent to Rebate Fund. In the event that tax-exempt Bonds are issued as provided in Section 3,09, the Corporation hereby covenants and agrees to make the determinations and to pay any deficiency into a rebate fund, at the times and as described in the Bond Resolution to comply with the provisions of section 148(f)(2) of the Code. In any event, if the amount of cash held in the rebate fund shall be insufficient to pemift the Trustee to make payment to the United 594033.6 -17- States of America of any amount due on any date , under section 148(f)(2) of the Code, each of the Cities forthwith shall pay the amount of such insufficiency on such date to the Trustee in immediately available funds for such purpose. The obligations of die Cities under this Section 3.10 are direct obligations of each City, acting under the authorization of, and on behalf of, the Corporation and the Corporation shall have no further obligation or duty with respect to the rebate fund. Section 3.12. k=gj m iutgna. All legally available money respecting the Bonds shall be invested in the manner set forth in the Bond Resolution. Any interest earnings on the Bond proceeds may be used to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds or for the payment of any Project Costs or other costs related to the Project approved by the Cities, subject to Section 3.09. aeclip I ht of Cities Prepay. The Cities shall have the light at any time to prepay all or any portion of the Annual Payments. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.09, such prepaid Annual Payments shall be used and invested by the Corporation as directed by the City which paid (i) as a credit against future Annual Payment obligations of such City, (ii) to redeem Bonds pursuant 594033.G -18- to the provisions of Section 3.44, or (iii) to provide for the defeasance of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Bond Resolution. Any such prepayment will not cause a termination of this Contract until all other amounts owed or to be incurred by the Corporation or any other person under the provisions of the Bond Resolution (including the charge for water pursuant to Section 8.05 hereof) have been paid in full or waived by such person. KLLIS Section . 1. V itoflyleasur ent, Theunitofineasurement for water delivered hereunder shall be 1,000 gallons of water, U: S. Standard Liquid Measure. The Corporation shall calibrate its meters periodically, but at least every three (3) years, if requested in writing by Cities to do so, in the presence of a representative of the Cities, and the parties shall jointly observe any adjustments which are made to the meters in case any adjustments shall be necessary, and if the check meters hereinafter provided for have been installed, the same shall also be calibrated by the Cities in the presence of a representative of Corporation and the parties shall jointly observe any adjustment in case any adjustment is necessary. If the Cities shall in writing request Corporation to calibrate its meters and Corporation shall give the Cities notice of the time when any such calibration is to be made and a representative of the Cities is not present at the time set, the Corporation may proceed with calibration and adjustment in the absence of any representative of the Cities. If either party at any time observes a variation between the delivery meter or meters and the check meter or meters, if any such check meter or meters shall be installed, such party will promptly notify the other party, and the parties hereto shall then cooperate to procure an immediate calibration test and joint observation of any adjustment and the said meter or meters shall then be adjusted to accuracy. Each party shall give the other parties forty -eight (48) hours' notice of the time of all tests of meters so that the other parties may conveniently have a representative present. 594033;6 -19 If upon any test, the percentage of inaccuracy of any metering equipment is found to be in excess of two percent (2%), registration thereof shall be corrected for a period extending back to the time when such inaccuracy began, if such time is ascertainable, and if such time is not ascertainable, then for a period extending back one-half (1/2) of the time elapsed since the last date of calibration, - but in no event further back than a period of six (6) months. If for any reason any meters are out of service or out of repair so that the amount of water delivered cannot be ascertained or computed from the reading thereof, the water delivered during the period such meters are out of service or out of repair shall be estimated and agreed upon by the parties hereto upon the basis of the best data available. For such purpose, the best data available shall be deemed- to be the registration of any check meter or meters if the same have been installed and are accurately registering. Otherwise the amount of water delivered during such period may be estimated (i) by correcting the error if the percentage of the error is ascertainable by calibration tests or mathematical calculation, or (h) by estimating the quantity of delivery by deliveries during the preceding periods under similar conditions when the meter or meters were registering accurately. Sggjqn5.U, nnual Estimate gf 6,Uja PUments. Not less than ninety (90) days prior to each Fiscal Year, the Corporation shall furnish to the Cities an estimate and schedule of the Annual Payments required to be paid by the Cities in such Fiscal Year. 594033.6 -20- the amount due it. The Corporation shall pursue all legal remedies against the Cities to enforce and protect the rights of the Corporation and the owners of the Bonds, and the Cities shall not be relieved of the liability to the Corporation for the payment of all amounts which are due by them hereunder. (b) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the Bond Resolution, all amounts due under this Contract shall be paid and are due in Guadalupe County, Texas, which is the County in which the principal administrative offices of the Corporation are located. (c) 'The Corporation shall redeterrnine the estimate and schedule of Annual Payments due in any Fiscal Year at any time during such Fiscal Year, as and to the extent deemed necessary or advisable by the Corporation to accurately forecast the amount and date of Annual Payments to be made by the Cities, if (j) the Corporation issues Bonds to complete the Project or to refund any Bonds or enters into, amends, or terminates a Credit Agreement, (H) actual interest rates on any variable interest rate Bonds differ from those projected by the Corporation, or (iii) any other event occurs which results in an increase or decrease in the Annual Payments required to be made by the Cities in such Fiscal Year. (d) If, during any Fiscal Year, the Annual Payment is redetermined in any manner as provided or required in this Section, the Corporation will promptly furnish the Cities with an updated schedule of payments reflecting such redetermination. (e) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no failure of the Corporation to estimate, and no mistake by the Corporation in any estimate of, the amount of or schedule for Annual Payments due from the Cities in any Fiscal Year shall relieve the Cities from (ordofer) their absolute and unconditional obligation to make all Annual Payments in full when due. aqgfio 1,5.ff Source. of Pamont. (a) Each of the Cities represents and covenants that all payments to be made by them under this Contract shall constitute reasonable and necessary "operating expenses", as defined in Chapter 1502, as amended, Texas Government Code (formerly Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated Article 1113, as amended) of the Cities' System, but only to the extent of the Annual Payment, and the Cities shall not be obligated to make the payments under this Contract from any source other than the gross revenues of the Cities' System. Each of the Cities further represents that the Governing Bodies of the Cities have determined that the services to be provided by the Project are absolutely necessary and essential to provide the water to the Cities. (b) Each of the Cities agrees throughout the term of this Contract to fix and collect such rates and charges for services to be supplied by the Cities' System as will product gross revenues at all times during the term of this Contract in an amount at least equal to (i) all of the expenses of operation and maintenance of the Cities' System, including specifically its payments under this Contract and (ii) all other amounts as required by law and the provisions of the ordinances or resolutions authorizing the Cities Utility Bonds or other obligations now or hereafter outstanding I A , 594033.6 -21- payable, in whole or in part, from the net revenues of the Cities' System, including the amounts required to pay all principal of and interest on such Cities Utility Bonds and other obligations. (c) No ad valorem tax revenues of either of the Cities shall be pledged to the payment of any amounts to be paid by the Cities to the Corporation under this Contract, nor shall the Corporation have the right to demand payment of any amounts to be paid by the Cities under this Contract be paid from funds raised or to be raised from ad valorem taxation from the Cities and the obligations under this Contract shall never be construed to be a debt or pecuniary obligation of the Cities of such kind as to require the Cities to levy and collect an ad valorem tax to discharge their obligations. To the extent not paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds, or otherwise, the Cities shall pay and reimburse the Corporation for all of its proportionate share of Operation and Maintenance Expenses and Overhead Expenses incurred by it throughout the term of this Contract within thirty (30) days of receipt of documentation therefor from the Corporation. The Cities also agree, with the consent of the Corporation, to enter into an interlocal agreement to provide for, among other matters, an annual adjustment of the Operation and Maintenance Expenses and Overhead Expenses paid by each City based upon certain formulas and taking into account the quantity of water actually utilized by each City. sec " _C ua I Budgeting the Cites. The Cities shall make provision in each of their annual budgets and shall appropriate an amount sufficient, at a minimum, for the payment of all amounts required to be paid by the Cities under this Contract. 5egliMM. Oen 1 Coven ts. Each City further each represents, covenants and agrees that in accordance with and to the extent permitted by law; (a) It will faithfully perform at all times any and all covenants, undertakings, stipulations, and provisions contained in each ordinance or resolution authorizing the issuance of its Cities Utility Bonds; and it will, at the time and in the manner prescribed, deposit or cause to be deposited the amounts required to be deposited into the fund and accounts created by said ordinances, but only from and to the extent of the sources of funds and after satisfaction of all prior obligations described therein. 594033.6 -22- (b) It is a duly created and existing home rule city of the State and is duly authorized under the laws of the State to enter into this Contract that all action on its part for the execution and delivery of this Contract has been duly and effectively taken; and that this Contract is a valid and enforceable special obligation of the Cities in accordance with its terms, (c) AcQuisition and Construction. OpLrAtion_g d M-aintenano. (1) It shall use its best efforts in accordance, with Prudent Utility Practice to acquire and construct, or cause to be acquired and constructed, any capital improvements to the Cities' System, which shall mean and include any capital extensions, improvements, and betterments, in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, as modified from time to time with due diligence and in a sound and economical manner; and (2) it shall at all times use its best efforts to operate or cause to be operated the Cities' System properly and in an efficient manner, consistent with Prudent Utility Practice, and shall use its best efforts to maintain, preserve, reconstruct and keep the same or cause the same to be so maintained, preserved, reconstructed and kept, with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair, working order and condition, and shall from time to time make, or use its best efforts to cause to be made, all necessary and proper repairs, replacement, and renewals so that at all times the operation of the Cities'Systern may be properly and advantageously conducted. (d) Title. It has or will obtain lawful title, whether such title is in fee or lesser interest, to the lands, buildings, structures, and facilities constituting its portion of the Cities' System; it will defend the title to all the aforesaid lands, buildings, structures, and facilities, and every part thereof, for the benefit of the Corporation and the owners of the Bonds, against the claims and demands of all persons whomsoever, and it is lawfully qualified to pledge the gross revenues of its portion of the Cities' System to the payment of the payments required by this Contract in the manner prescribed herein, and has lawfully exercised such rights. (e) dens. It will from time to time and before the same become delinquent pay and discharge all taxes, assessments, and governmental charges, if any, which shall be lawfully imposed upon its portion of the Cities' System; it will pay all lawful cWms for rents, royalties, labor, materials, and supplies which if unpaid might by law become a lien or charge thereon, the lien of which would be prior to or interfere with the liens hereof, so that the priority of the lien granted hereunder shall be fully preserved in the manner provided herein; and it will not create or suffer to be created any mechanic's, laborer's, materialman's, or other lien or charge which might or could be prior to the liens hereof, or do or suffer any matter or thing whereby the lien hereof might or could be impaired; provided however, that no such tax, assessment, or charge, and that no such claims which might be used as the basis of a mechanic's, laborer's, materialman's, ' or other lien or charge, shall be required to be paid so long as the validity of the same shall be contested in good faith by the Cities. and Accounts, It shall keep proper books, records, and accounts separate and apart from all other records and accounts, in which complete and correct entries shall be made of all transactions relating to its portion of the Cities'System, the Bonds, and the Cities, and 594033.6 -23- shall cause said books and accounts to be audited annually as of the close of each Fiscal Year by the Accountant. At the request of the Corporation, the Cities shall allow the Corporation to audit such books, records, and accounts at any reasonable time and from time to time. (g) jagq .e. (1) Except as otherwise permitted in clause (2) below, it shall cause to be insured such parts of its portion of the Cities' System as would usually be insured by corporations operating like properties, with a responsible insurance company or companies, against risks, accidents, or casualties against which and to the extent insurance is usually carried by corporations operating like properties, including, to the extent reasonably obtainable, fire and extended coverage insurance, insurance against damage by floods, and use and occupancy insurance. Public liability and property damage insurance shall also be carried unless the City Attorney gives a written opinion to the effect that the City is not liable for claims which would be protected by such insurance. At any time while any contractor engaged in construction work shall be fully responsible therefor, the Cities shall not be required to carry insurance on the work being constructed if the contractor is required to carry appropriate insurance. All such policies shall be open to the inspection of the Corporation at all reasonable times. (2) In lieu of obtaining policies for insurance as provided above, the Cities may self- insure, against risks, accidents, claims, or casualties described in clause (1) above. (3) The annual audit hereinafter required shall contain a section commenting on whether or not the City has complied with the requirements of this Section with respect to the maintenance of insurance, and listing the areas of insurance for which the City is self-insuring, all policies cmTied, and whether or not all insurance premiums upon the insurance policies to which reference is hereinbefore made have been paid. (h) Audi g. After the close of each Fiscal Year while this Contract is in effect, an audit will be made by each City of the books and accounts relating to its portion of the Cities' System and its portion of the revenues of the Cities' System by the Accountant. As soon as practicable after the close of each such Fiscal Year, and when said audit has been completed and made available to the Cities, a copy of such audit for the preceding Fiscal Year shall be mailed to the Corporation. Such annual audit reports shall be open to the inspection of the Corporation, its agents and representatives, the Trustee, and the owners of the Bonds at all reasonable times at the Corporation's office. (i) GqveM=ZIW Agencies. It will comply with all of the terms and conditions of any and all franchises, permits, and authorizations applicable to or necessary with respect to the Cities' System, and which have been obtained from any governmental agency; and the Cities have or will obtain and keep in fall force and effect all franchises, permits, authorizations, and other requirements applicable to or necessary with respect to the acquisition, construction, equipment, operation, and maintenance of the Cities' System. 594033.6 -24- 0) Np Cognt etition. To the extent it legally may, it will not grant any franchise or permit for the acquisition, construction, or operation of any competing facilities which might be used as a substitute for the Cities' System's facilities, and, to the extent that it legally may, each City will prohibit any such competing facilities. (k) Blights of inspection. The Corporation, the Trustee, and the owners of 10 %® or more in principal amount of the Bonds of any series shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect the Cities'System and all records, accounts, and data of the Cities relating thereto, and upon request the Cities shall furnish to the Corporation, the Trustee, and such owners of Bonds such financial statements, reports, and other information relating to the Cities and the Cities'System as any such person may from time to time reasonably request. (1) Sale Lease. s r en _ by the Cities. No part of the Cities' System shall be sold, leased, mortgaged, demolished, removed, or otherwise disposed of, except as follows: (1) To the extent permitted by law, a City may sell or exchange at any time and from time to time any property or facilities constituting its part of the Cities' System only if (i) it shall determine such property or facilities are not useful in the operation of the Cities' System, or (ii) the proceeds of such sale are $250,000 or less, or it shall have received a certificate executed by the City Engineer of Record and the City Manager stating, in their opinion, that the fair market value of the property or facilities exchanged is $250,000 or less, or (iii) if such proceeds or fair market value exceeds $250,000 it shall have received a certificate executed by the City Engineer of Record and the City Manager stating (A) that system within the Cities' System of which the property or facilities comprises a part thereof and (B) in their opinion, that the sale or exchange of such property or facilities will not impair the ability of the Cities to comply during the current or any future year with the provisions of Section 5.03(b) of this Contract. The proceeds of any such sale or exchange not used to acquire other property necessary or desirable for the safe or efficient operation of the Cities' System shall forthwith, at the option of the Cities be used as provided in the ordinances of the Cities authorizing its Cities Utility Bonds. (2) To the extent permitted by law, a City may lease or make contracts or grant licenses for the operation of, or make arrangements for the use of, or grant easements or other rights with respect to, any part of its portion of the Cities' System, provided that any such lease, contract, license, arrangement, easement or right (i) does not impede the operation by the Cities of the Cities' System and (ii) does not in any manner impair or adversely affect the rights or security of the Corporation under this Contract; and provided, further, that if the depreciated cost of the property to be covered by any such lease, contract, license, arrangement, easement, or other right is in excess of $500,000, the Cities shall have received a certificate executed by the City Engineer of Record and the City Manager that the action of the Cities with respect thereto does not result in a breach of the conditions under this subsection (2). Any payments received by the Cities under or in connection with any such lease, contract, license, arrangement, easement or right in respect of the Cities'System or any part thereof shall constitute gross revenues of the Cities' System. 594033.6 -25- M# Section 0.01. 6numal Roort-s. Following the issuance of Bonds of any series, the offer or sale of which is not exempt from the Rule and, until the Cities are no longer obligated, contingently or otherwise, to make Annual Payments in respect of the Bonds of such series, the Cities undertake to and shall provide annually to each NRMSIR and any SID, within six months after the end of each Fiscal Year, (1) financial information and operating data of the general type included in the Sale and Offering Documents for the Bonds of such series, as specified in the Cities' approval of such Sale and Offering Documents pursuant to Section 3.01 hereof and (2) audited general purpose financial statements of the Cities, if then available. Any financial statements so to be provided shall be (1) prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for governmental agencies or such other accounting principles as the Cities may be required to employ from time to time pursuant to state law or regulation, and (2) audited, if the Cities comnidssion an audit of such statements and the audit is completed within the period during which it must be provided. If the audit of such financial statements is not complete within such period, then the Cities shall provide unaudited financial statements within the required period, and shall provide audited financial statements for the applicable Fiscal Year to each NRMSIR and any SID, when and if the audit report on such statements become available, If the Cities change their Fiscal Year, they will notify the Trustee, each NRMSIR, and any SID in writing of the change (and of the date of the now Fiscal Year end) prior to the next date by which the Cities otherwise would be required to provide financial information and operating data pursuant to this Section. The financial information and operating data to be provided pursuant to this Section may be set forth in full in one or more documents or may be incorporated by specific reference to any document or specific pan thereby (including an official statement or other offtring document, if it is available from the MSRB) that theretofore has been provided to each NRMSJR and any SID or filed with the SEC. Copies of such information and operating data shall be furnished to the Corporation at the same time the information and data are furnished to any NRMSIR or SID. &gjjo 6.Q - Matenal -y t Notices. (a) The following are the events with respect to the Bonds which the Corporation must agree to disclose in a timely manner pursuant to the Rule, if "material" under applicable federal securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder. (1) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) Non-payment related defaults; (3) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; 594033.6 -26- (4) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;, (6) Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax - exempt status of the Bonds; (7) Modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (8) Bond calls;, (9) Defeasances (10) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds; and (1I) Rating changes. The provisions of this Article are for the sole benefit of (and may be enforced by) the owners and beneficial owners of the Bonds, and nothing in this Article, express or implied, shall give any benefit or any legal or equitable right, remedy, or claim hereunder to any other person. The Cities undertake to provide only the financial information, operating data, financial statements, and notices which they have expressly agreed to provide pursuant to this Article and do not hereby undertake to provide any other information that may be relevant or material to a complete presentation of the Cities' financial results, condition, or prospects or hereby undertake to update any information provided in accordance with this Article or otherwise, except as expressly provided herein. The Cities makes no representation or warranty concerning such information or its usefulness to a decision to invest in or sell Bonds at any future date. 594033.6 -27 No default by the Cities in observing or performing its obligations under this Article, shall comprise a breach of or default under this Contract for purposes of any other provision of this Contract. Nothing in this Article is intended or shall act to disclaim, waive, or otherwise limit the duties of the Corporation or the Cities under federal and state securities laws. The provisions of this Article may be amended by the Corporation and the Cities from time to time to adapt to changed circumstances that arise from a change in legal requirements, a change in law, or a change in the identity, nature, status, or type of operations of the Corporation or the Cities, but only if (1) the provisions of this Article, as so amended, would have permitted an underwriter to purchase or sell Bonds of the applicable series in the primary offering of the Bonds of such series in compliance with the Rule, taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule since such offering as well as such changed circumstances, and (2) either (a) the owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount (or any greater amount required by any other provision of this Contract that authorizes such an amendment) of the outstanding Bonds of each such series affected consent to such amendment or (b) an entity that is unaffiliated with the Corporation or the Cities (such as nationally recognized bond counsel) detennines that such amendment will not materially impair the interest of the owners and beneficial owners of the Bonds of such series and is permitted by the terms of the Article. If the Corporation and the Cities so amend the provisions of this Article in connection with the financial or operating data which the Cities are required to disclose under Section 6.01 hereof, the Cities shall provide a notice of such amendment to be filed in accordance with Section 6.02(b) hereof, together with an explanation, in narrative form, of the reason for the amendment and the impact of any change in the type of financial information or operating data to be so provided. The Corporation and the Cities may also amend or repeal the provisions of this Article if the SEC amends orrepeals the applicable, provision of the Rule or a court of final jurisdiction enters judgment that such provisions of the Rule are invalid, but only if and to the extent that the provisions of this sentence would not prevent an underwriter from lawfully purchasing or selling Bonds in the primary offering of the Bonds. SM33.6 -28- The foregoing requirements of this Article Nrff shall be amended as necessary to comply with the rules of the TNRCC. All costs of compliance with the rules of the TNRCC shall be paid by the Corporation, but such costs shall be considered an Operation and Maintenance Expense. 594033.6 -29- I,RLcoon 8.01. Partic by the.-Parties. The Corporation and each of the Cities each represents to the others that it is empowered by law to participate in the acquisition, construction, and financing of the Project, and to execute this Contract and other agreements and documents as are or may hereafter be required to accomplish the same; and that its participation in the Project and execution of this Contract have been duly authorized by action of its governing body at a meeting conducted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, as amended, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. The Corporation and each of the Cities agree to furnish to the other such documentation or evidence of its authority to so participate and execute the contracts and other agreements as the other party may reasonably request, and to take and perform such other and fudher actions and execute such other agreements and documents as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions of this Contract. SpjoprL8,02. Insuran . (a) The Corporation agrees to carry public liability insurance on the Project for purposes and in amounts which ordinarily would be carried by a privately owned utility company owning and operating such facilities, except that the Corporation shall not be required to carry liability insurance except to insure itself against risk of loss due to claims for which it can, in the opinion of the Corporation's legal counsel, be potentially liable considering relevant govemmental immunities of the Cities and the Corporation. The Corporation shall also carry property casualty insurance in the amount of the replacement value of all improvements and personal property connected with the Project (less a deductible comparable to the deductible on the Cities' property insurance for Cities property generally). All premiums for such insurance shall constitute an expense of the Project but may be paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds to the extent that such proceeds are available. In the event the Corporation is required to pay a deductible with respect to a claim under any such policy, the amount of such deductible shall constitute an expense and shall be paid by the Cities. (b) The Corporation shall require the contractor or contractors employed forconstruction of the Project to carry insurance coverages throughout the construction period in at least the following amounts: (1) workers' compensation: State law limits; (2) general liability (including contractual liability) and automobile liability; one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per person and per occurrence for bodily injury and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for property damage; (3) builder's risk: full replacement value of improvements; (4) performance and payment bond: full value of contract; (5) cost overrun insurance; and (6) timely completion insurance. The Cities shall be furnished with a certified copy of such effective policy of insurance prior to commencement of construction. Such insurance policies shall name the Corporation and the Cities as additional insureds, and the Corporation shall brprovided with a certificate of insurance showing 594033.6 -30- f the required coverages and providing that the policies may not be canceled, changed, or not renewed until the Corporation has been given thirty (30) days prior written notice of such event, (c) The insurance required by this section maybe modified by written agreement of the Cities and the Corporation, in accordance with good business practice. Any questions about the scope of coverage required hereunder shall be resolved by written agreement between the Cities and the Corporation. The parties can agree to substitute an owner controlled insurance program for any of the above specified insurance requirements. LeaLio A 8, re. If by reason of Force Majeure any party hereto shall be _U. Force MaiM_ rendered unable wholly or in part to carry out its obligations under this Contract, other than the obligation of the Cities to make the payments required under Sections 3.05, and 5,02 of this Contract, then if such party.shall give notice and full particulars of such Force Majeure in writing to the other party within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the event or cause relied on, the obligation of the party giving such notice, so far as it is affected by such Force Majeure, shall be suspended during the continuance of the inability then claimed, but for no longer period, and any such party shall endeavor to remove or overcome such inability with all reasonable dispatch. The term "Force Majeure" as employed herein shall mean acts of God, strikes, lockouts or other industrial cbsturbanccs, acts of public enemy, orders of any kind of the Government of the United States or the State of Texas, or any civil or military authority, insurrection, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquake, fires, hurricanes, blue northers, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, arrests, restraint of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions, breakage or accidents to machinery, pipelines or canals, partial or enfixe failure of water supply, inability on the part of the Corporation to deliver water for any reason, or on account of any other causes not reasonably within the control of the party claiming such inability. Spogn s.o4. I c ` n M e EayMegt. Recognizing the fact that the Cities urgently require the facilities and services of the Projedt, and that such facilities and services are essential and necessary for actual use and for standby purposes, and recognizing the fact that the Annual Payments to be received from each of the Cities will be the primary source of funds available to the Corporation and the Trustee to pay the Bonds, and recognizing the fact that purchasers of Bonds will rely on the obligation of the Cities to make Annual Payments in accordance with the provisions of this Contract, each of the Cities hereby waives all rights of set-off, recoupment, counterclaim, suspension, deferment, reduction, and amendment, with respect to making the Annual Payments against the Corporation, the Trustee, and any other direct or indirect recipients of Annual Payments, and the Cities agree that, if the Bonds are issued, they shall be unconditionally obligated to pay the Annual Payments as provided and determined by this Contract, regardless of whether or not the Corporation actually acquires, constructs, or completes the Project or breaches any obligation on its part hereunder, and whether or not the Cities actually uses the Project, whether due to Force Majeure, or any other reason whatsoever, regardless of any other provisions of this Contract, any other contract or agreement between any of the parties hereto. This 594033.6 -31- e "VWMJr-?P , 19VOPAWRI 1 . f I IPPIPS W--- ind/or by the Corporation. By entering into this Contract and perforrr�ng its obligations under any Section of this e� Contract, the Cities do not release any persons from or waive any claims against such persons that fte bv such Dr-rsons contrary to that nerson's leeal oblieation Seclion 8.06. Modification. No change, amendment, • modification of this Contract shall be made or be effective which will affect adversely the prompt payment when due of all money reauired to be wid 6 the Cities under the terms of this Contract and no such chan e. amendment, Bond Resolution. 594033.6 -32- If to the Corporation: President, Board of Directors Schertz/Seguin Local Government Corporation c/o City Manager City of Schertz, Texas 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz., Texas 78154 If to the Cities-, City Manager City of Schertz, Texas 1400 Schertz Parkway Schertz, Texas 78154 City Manager City of Seguin, Texas 210 East Gonzales Seguin, Texas 78155 The Corporation and the Cities hereto shall have the right from time to time and at any time to change their respective addresses and each shall have the right to specify as its address any other address by at least fifteen (15) days'writton notice to the other parties. tiQ.n 8,09. L qver ijU ically agree that in case any one or more 4b t The parties hereto specif of the sections, subsections, provisions, clauses, or words of this Contract or the application of such sections, subsections, provisions, clauses, or words to any situation or circumstance should be, or should be held to be, for any reason, invalid or unconstitutional, under the laws or constitutions of the State or the United States of America, or in contravention of any such laws or constitutions, such invalidity, unconstitutionality, or contravention shall not affect any other sections, subsections, provisions, clauses, or words of this Contract or the application of such actions, subsections, 594033.6 -33- provisions, clauses, or words to any other situation or circumstance, and it is intended that this Contract shall be severable and shall be construed and applied as if any such invalid or unconstitutional section, subsection, provision, clause, or word had not been included herein, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed and remain in force accordingly. &,Aj9&&j . R om dii: VVnPefqMjj. It is not intended hereby to specify (and this Contract shall not be considered as specifying) an exclusive remedy for any default, but all such other remedies (other than termination) existing at law or in equity maybe availed of by either party hereto and shall be cumulative. Recognizing that failure in the performance of the Cities' obligations hereunder could not be adequately compensated in money damages alone, each of the Cities agrees in the event of any default on its part that the Corporation and the owners of the Bonds as third-party beneficiaries shall have available to them the remedies of mandamus and specific performance in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies (other than termination) which may also be available to them, Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Contract, any right or remedy or any default hereunder, except the right of the Corporation to receive the Annual Payments and the provision of Section 3.09 hereof, which shall never be determined to be waived, shall be deemed to be conclusively waived unless asserted by a proper proceeding at law or in equity within two (2) years plus one (1) day after the occurrence of such default. No waiver or waivers of any broach or default (or any breaches or defaults) by any party hereto or of the performance by any other party of any duty or obligation hereunder shall be deemed a waiver thereof in the future, nor shall any such waiver Drwaivers be. deemed or construed to be a waiver of subsequent breaches or defaults of any kind, character or description, under any circumstances. Venue. All amounts duo under this Contract, including, but not limited to, payments due under this Contractor damages for the breach of this Contract, shall be paid and be due in Guadalupe County, Texas, which is the County in which the principal administrative offices of the Corporation are located. It is specifically agreed among the parties to this Contract that Guadalupe, County, Texas, is the place of performance of this Contract-, and in the event that any legal proceeding is brought to enforce this Contract or any provision hereof, the same shall be brought in Guadalupe County, Texas. ec " I2. Statutory Authority. In entering into this Contract and performing all duties and obligations hereunder, the Cities and the Corporation exercise their authority under and in accordance with the State Constitution and laws including, but not limited to, the Act, Chapter 402, as amended, Texas Local Government Code; Chapter 1502, as amended, Texas Government Code (fonmerly Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated Articles I I I I through 1118), the Cities' Home Rule Charter; Chapter 1371, as amended, Texas Government Code (formerly Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated Article 717qj and all other laws which may authorize this Contract, all of which provisions and laws, cited or not cited herein, shall cumulatively provide the authority for this Contract. 594033,6 -34- Secti 8. . QM ict not for Benefit of J ` This Contract is made for the exclusive benefit of the Cities, the Corporation, the Trustee, the owners of the Bonds, the parties to any Credit Agreements, the underwriters of any offering of and remarketing agent and tender agent, if any, for any Bonds, and their respective successors and assigns herein permitted, and not for any third party or parties other than the Corporation (including its officers, directors, employees, agents, and attorneys), the Trustee, the owners of the Bonds, the Cities, and the parties to any Credit Agreements, the underwriters of any offering of and remarketing agent and tender agent, if any, for any Bonds, the other persons indemnified by Section 8.13 hereof, and their respecti ve successors and assigns herein permitted, any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Contract. Section &I . $Aqges IMAnd i ent This Contract is binding on and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, representatives, and assigns. This Contract may not be assigned by either party hereto without (i) complying with any provisions relating to the right of the parties to assign this Contract contained in the Bond Resolution and (ii) prior written notice to and approval by the other party, which consent may be withheld without cause. The provisions of this Section do not affect the assignment of the Corporation's rights under this Contract to the Trustee pursuant to Section 3.08. 595033.6 -35 JDg=oratjongfZM=WeRecJtaJs. The recitals contained in the preamble hereof are hereby found to be true, and such recitals are hereby made apart of this Contract for all puTposes and are adopted as a part of the judgment and findings of the Corporation and the Cities. Section 8.17, lade nBndent QOtML Qi:. As among the parties, the Corporation shall be solely responsible for the operation of the Project to produce and treat groundwater and to transport water to the Cities pursuant to this Contract (except to the extent the Corporation and the Cities enter into agreements for the Cities to operate parts of the Project); and the Corporation shall be an independent contractor in the operation of the Project. Section 11.1. EjDM,cjn&SgLqMt. Each of the Cities agrees at the request of the Corporation they shall execute a financing statement in a form satisfactory to the Corporation and meeting the requirements of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code to perfect any security interest created hereby. The Cities further agree to execute such continuation statements or other documents as may be necessary to maintain any such security interest. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the matters described herein. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State, and the obligations, rights, and remedies of the parties hereunder shall be determined in accordance with such laws without reference to the laws of any other state or jurisdiction, except for applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 594033.6 -36� 594033A -37- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acting under authority of their respective Attest: City Secretary Agenda No. 14 CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM SHPC: March 13, 2018 Department: Development Services Subject: Resolution No. 18 -R -30 Consideration . and /or action approving a Request for a Historical Incentive Program for the Main Street Area grant for 533 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 16 -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 a template for the 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 elements of the City of Schertz' historic, architectural, economic, cultural, and social heritage. It does so by providing property owners an incentive for protecting their property; stabilizing and improving property values; fostering civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past, and to promoting the use of the historic structures for the cultural, educational and general welfare of residents. It also serves to strengthen the economy of the city by protecting and enhancing the attractiveness of the Main. Street area to residents and visitors, as well as providing support and stimulus to businesses. The Owner of the property at 533 Main Street, Nick Marquez, is applying for a grant for proposed work to the primary structure. Mr. Marquez is the owner of the Old Main Ice House in downtown Cibolo. Old Main Ice House has been one of a number of businesses that has been key in bringing about the revitalization of Cibolo's downtown. He is proposing to renovate the structure and develop the property in order to open a similar type bar. This type of use, providing local flavor through unique restaurants and bars, is in keeping with the goals of the Main Street Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marquez has provided an attached estimate of cost of work. The estimate cost exceeds the amount for which the City will provide a matching grant, but it allows him flexibility as to what the City provides a match. The grant is a 1:1 matching grant, with the City providing $20,000 to go towards additional expenses after the applicant spends $20,000 — though the City Council Memorandum Page 2 monies can be paid in increments. Most of the proposed work is to building systems — HVAC, plumbing, electrical and framing. A small amount is for exterior paint. These are all eligible expenses for the grant. The only real changes to the exterior beyond painting are the addition of a deck and cover towards the back of the building and the demolition of the detached garage that is leaning. The Guadalupe County Appraisal District records show the improvements, the structure to have existed in 1940 which is more than 50 years ago. The property is located in the Main Street Incentive Area, and taxes must be current prior to paying the grant. On March 8, 2018 the Schertz Historic Preservation Committee (SHPQ voted to recommend approval of the request. Goal Promote the history and culture of the City of Schertz to tourists and residents. Community Benefit Recognize structures of significance to the community's past. Summary of Recommended Action. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 18 -R -30 approving the Schertz Main Street Area Preservation Incentive Grant for up to $20,000 subject to the applicant entering into the incentive agreement with the City. FISCAL IMPACT Up to $20,000 from the Hotel Occupancy Tax Funds. RECOMMENDATION Approval ATTACHMENT Resolution 18 -R -30 Funding Agreement Template Grant Expenses Sheet Photos of Property Proposed changes to exterior — deck and cover work plans RESOLUTION NO. 18 -R -30 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 533 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 533 Main Street for up to $20,000; 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 533 Main Street subject to the approved criteria of the program and execution of a funding agreement generally 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 13th day of March 2018. CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS Michael :R Carpenter, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Dennis, City Secretary (CITY SEAL) Exhibit A 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 $znding under is AGREEMENT. The cast of the insurance herein mentioned to be secured and marntamed by the ENTITY shall be borne solely by the ENTITY. IN WITNESS HEREOF,.-',-the CiT AGREEMENT to be of ective:this ' x" da: City Secretary (Title) (Title) and execute this ZO PAGF 4 4F 5 [Describe the prof cet to be performed] PAGE S or 5 533 Main St. Improvements to Structure HVAC : 6,000 Plumbing: 14,000 Electrical: 20,500 Framing,Support Structure,Finish Walls : 8,000 Exterior Structure Paint : 1500 D 1 ON - A R`3 L W*BZWAMJ 1'I :21. ®011 ( 211 L 12" 6 MWTTIM mm U U KEY NOTES 5000 psi CONCRETE LANDINC7 AT' MOOD LANDING TO MATCH ELEVATION AND OF architects 4� EXI5TIN0 ILDINO FINI5H FLOOR AT DOOR architecture . ACCE551BLE WOO® RAMP planning .protect _ 2X4 TREATED WOOD WARDRAIL, 42" ABOVE managment FIN15H FLOOR TO TOP OF RAIL PAINT FINI5H. 1016 state Highway 46 East Boerne, Texas 78006 13" DIAMETER 5 L HAND IL5® 56" FROM t: 210.781.3405 FINISH FLOOR TO TOP OF IL. PAINT FINI5H. alvin.ainaC�gmail.ci)m wwtiv.aparchitects.weebly:com r - l J ,2X6 A D WOOD PECK MATERIAL ON X$ Alvin pare itects,weebly.c WOOD F MIND ON 6X6 WOOD POSTS �p 9 �f �t 4'X4' X Iy4" 5TEEL t U CANOPY % RT 1 Reserved, Architects, in Rights reproductions ssarreathe� and its P property of -'" AP Architects and may not be reproduced, published, or used in ,t 4x4' TREATED Y`IOOD P05T AT 4v- Oz.. any way without the written SUPPORTING WOOD WARDRAIL AND HANDRAILS- permission of AP Architects. (1 26 OA. METAL R® PANEL ROOFING, EXP05ED FA5TENER5, 67ALVALUME FINISH ON STEEL 6IRT5 The — ON STEEL TUBE FRAMINO - r Howse — ICi 2X� X Y4' S EL TUBE BEAM ll 10" DIAMETER CONCRETE FOOTING WITH 5- 5TEEL REINFORCINC7 rIN 533 Main Street 4 8 Texas PERMIT a Mi W—N DO MIEN I FINISH ON STEEL 6IRT5 ON STEEL TUDE FRAMINC7 01 roof plan SCALE: 118" = 1p® 0" o� I (D I M r, ON a - 0 in decK / ramp support D" @) a"x12"x4a" CONCRETE STRIP FOOTIN& NITH 2- #4 STEEL REINFORCIN6 "Ar- ar off► I IFOV - f fir — 01- 1 yl MOMM"F11-11 �J�Iqlt Le a r . h i s e c t s architecture . planning . project managment 1016 State Highw746 East Boerne, Texas 8006 t 210,781.3405 alvin.apa@gmaii.com www.aparchitects.weebly.com Alvin G, Peters, Architect #15199 @ An Architects, All Rights Reserved. This drawing and its reproductions are the property of An Architects and may not be reproduced, published, or used in any way without the written permission of AP Architects. The Bar House MERVIN REVISED DALE_ =- 0 WLECTEP CEILM PLAN LEGEND RCP PLAN KEY NOTES N ED Ap I ALL FINISH COLORS SHALL BE SELECTED FINISHED CEILING HEIGHT (DPAINT FINISH ON i " GW15 ON EXISTING WOOD Al) FRAMING 4 0 EXIT SIGN WITH BATTERY BACKUP PAINT FINISH ON EXISTING WOOD CEILING FINISH h i 1 0 o t s architecture @) PAINT FINISH ON WOOD BEAM planning . project ELEVATIONS AT FINISH FLOOR OF CEILINGS THAT EXTERIOR WALL MTD. FLUORESCENT managment AT P140TO-CELL CONTROLLED AND WITH (�) EXPOSED STRUCTURE BATTERY BACKUP 1016 State Highvv7 46 East Boeme, Texas 8006 2' X 4' %WACE MaNTED FLUORESCENT t 2.10:781.3405 alvin.apa@gmaii.com A4.1 FIXTUn. 4 LIGHTS. wwaparchitects.weebly.com Alvin G. Peters, Architect #15199 2'X 4'SUWACE MOUNTED FLUORESCENT AP Architects, All Rights FIXTUn WITH BATTERY 13ACKUP. 4 LIGHTS. Reserved. This drawing and its reproductions are the property of AP Architects and may not be reproduced, published, or used in anyway without the mitten permission of AP Architects, BATTERY BACKUP EMER3ENCY LIGHT FIXTURE The 0 PENDANT MOUNTED FLUORESCENT LIGHT Bar House FIXTURE. I LIGHT /11\ SURFACE MOUNTED FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE. I LIGHT 633 Main Well 52" CEILING PAN WITH LIGHT KIT. FINISH AS SELECTEE Scheft Texas BY THE OWNER WALL SCONCE LED EMERGENCY BATTERY BACKUP PERMIT LIGHT FIXTURE. I LIGHT REMSED DATE NOTE: EVERY SYM50L MAY NOT BE USED IN THIS PROJECT. PREFER TO MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFOWATION. SO giMRAL NOTES N ED Ap I ALL FINISH COLORS SHALL BE SELECTED BY OWNER 4 2 VERIFY FIXTURE QUANTITIES AND LOCATIONS WITH ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR 3 NEW CEILING FINISH INSTALLATIONS TO MATCH 02.06.2018 ELEVATIONS AT FINISH FLOOR OF CEILINGS THAT P2sriiaa WERE DEMOLISHED AT 02.0DB268 rcp plan A4.1 01 typical exterior wall section ` w .w s w, l wwl w.. nA rear bar looklm to patio .. , . looking ip, front bar e 0 front bar looking towards office 2 SCALE: 114!= 1- 0" f. s .............. SECTION 1. THE NOMINAL DIMENSIONS OF AT PARTI TION5 15 USED ON FLOOR FLANS. architects 2. CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE-RATED PARTITIONS, INLUDINC TAPING AND architecture . FINI5HIN6 OF GYPSUM BOARD FOR FULL planning , project: HEIC,HT TO STRUCTURE ABOVE, SHALL BE managment IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS DIRECTIONS TO ACHIEVE TING 7018oernte, T. as 78006 East INDICATED ON ® IN t210,781.3405 . UND ®1 LATION PARTITIONS SHALL alvin.apaC�ts.weecom www.aparciritects.weebly,com BE SEALED AIRTIC7HT FOR FULL HE16HT TO PREVENT PA55A&E OF AIRBORNE Alvin G, Peters, Architect #15199 SOUND. TAPE AND FINISH ALL GYPSUM © AP Architects, All Rights BOARD JOINTS AND FASTENERS. Reserved, This drawing and its reproductions ore the property of t/ I°'�6. l: PROVIDE IDE SE A t ANT AT PERIMETER AND re Architects. and may. not be. reproduced, published, or used in AT ALL PENETRATIONS. any per way without the written permission of AP Arehitat #s, . KEY NOTES a FI ERGLA55 EATT INSULATION The Q EX15TINO METAL ROOFING TO REMAIN ON 2X Bar House HOOD FRAMIN6 0 front bar looking towards office 2 SCALE: 114!= 1- 0" f. s .............. A/I010 to] 710`1 UUV1 City Council Meeting: Department: Subject: Informational Item March 13, 2017 Economic Development The Capital Group Inc. 2017 tax reimbursement according to the Development Agreement History: In August 2010, the City Council approved a Development Agreement among the City of Schertz, Texas, the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation, and The Capital. Group Companies, Inc. ( "Capital Group ") (the "Agreement "). The Agreement established a performance -based tax incentive for the development of a data center facility. In consideration Capital Group would be eligible to receive an annual reimbursement of 75% of the taxable real and personal property of a period of eight years. On January 16, 2018 Capital Group reported its compliance to the Agreement for the 2017 tax year. In accordance to the Agreement Capital Group has: Y Constructed a 50,000 square foot data center costing approximately $35 million. Y Employed at least 2 full -time employees with an average annual payroll of approximately $150,000. Capital. Group has paid all real and personal property taxes for the 2017 . tax year. A copy of the 2017 . Property Tax Statements are attached for verification. FISCAL IMPACT Capital Group's 2017 total real and personal property tax value was $20,891,333 (real property $11,700,000 + personal property $9,191,333). According to the Agreement, Capital. Group will receive $76,932.33 which is a 75% tax reimbursement for their real and personal property. The methodology for the reimbursement is noted below: Y (Total tax value * 2017 Schertz tax rate) /100) = total taxes paid * 75% = Capital Group's 2017 tax reimbursement Y ($20,891,333 * 0.4910 %) / 100 = $102,576.45 * 75% _ $76,932.33 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has evaluated the Agreement and found that Capital Group is compliant for the 2017 tax year. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the reimbursement in accordance with the Agreement. Ir W 1/�*:I ►I I IIa, 1((.y 2017 . Property Tax Statements (:R663633 and P327932) ,. . p 9 To avoid the accrual of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 31. 0 e If your tax should be paid by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office. 0 o View property tax information, e- stater eats and ether payment options such as A H, escrow, credit 11,146,151 cards ate property.do. uadalupe tx.us 100.00 Credo Cards Will incur an additional vendor fee. 00161498 , tured home accounts, accrue April 1st, Property ID: R663633 .CP E 'A t-S A 0 RiT4#€ N �DRIGH� :A coJPQ $248,897.73 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC 3500 WISEMAN BLVD SAN ANTONIO TX 78251 ME ❑ CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION ON BACK Daryl John 99 9 TAX ASS ESSOR-COLLECTOR a A VERDE ENTERPRISE BUSINESS PARK UNIT #6A BLOCK 9 r It' t R663633 LOT 3 GCO ABT 75% THROUGH 2019 6.616 AC GCO ABT 75% ' • THROUGH � 1 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC � t 5700 MID - CITIES PKWY..* PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT for 2017 Phone Number: 30- 379 -2315 opt. 1 City OfSchertz 0 11,700,000 AB 0 11,700,000 0.4910000 57,447.00 Guadalupe County 0 11,700,000 AB 8,359,613 3,340,387 -0.3269000 10,919.73 Lateral Roads 0 11,700,000 AB 0 11,700,000 0.0530000 6,201.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd 0 11,700,000 AB 0 11,700,000 1.4900000 174,330.00 ,. . p 9 To avoid the accrual of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 31. 0 e If your tax should be paid by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office. 0 o View property tax information, e- stater eats and ether payment options such as A H, escrow, credit 11,146,151 cards ate property.do. uadalupe tx.us 100.00 Credo Cards Will incur an additional vendor fee. 00161498 , tured home accounts, accrue April 1st, Property ID: R663633 .CP E 'A t-S A 0 RiT4#€ N �DRIGH� :A coJPQ $248,897.73 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC 3500 WISEMAN BLVD SAN ANTONIO TX 78251 ME ❑ CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION ON BACK Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page 1 of 2 Property Owner Property Address 2017 Assessed Value 8663633 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC 5700 MID- CITIES PKWY $11,700,000 20917 ., Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES ........ DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective Date: DUE 1111111111111 PAID DUE 3(8(2018 City Of Schertz $57,447.00 2-6-2018 $57,447.00 $0.00 . .... . ......... $10,919.73 ' Current Amount Due $0.00 Guadalupe County 2 -6 -2018 $10,919.73 $0.00 Lateral Roads $6,201.00 2 -6-2018 $6,201.00 $0,00 Past Years Due $0,00 Sch - cib -uc Isd $174,330.00 2 -6 -2018 $174,330,00 $0.00 " TOTALS $248,897.73 $248,897,73 $0.00 Total Clue $0.00 ? 7016 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTALTAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $61,33839 1 -26 -2017 $61,33839 $0.00 Guadalupe County $11,71194 1-26-2017 $11,713.94 $0.00 Lateral Roads $6,744.60 1- 26-2017 $6,744.60 $0.00 Sch - cib -uc lad $183,603.00 1- 26- 2017 $183,603.00 $0.00 TOTALS $263,399.93 $263,399.93 $0.00 2015 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE City Of Schertz $61,039.91 1-28-2016 $61,039.91 $0,00 Guadalupe County $11,66163 1-28-2016 $11,66163 $0.00 " Lateral Roads $6,711.78 1 -28 -2016 $6,711.78 $0.00 Sch-cib -uc Isd $185,195.41 1 -28 -2016 $185,195.41 $0.00 TOTALS $264,610.73 $264,610.73 $0.00 2014 Tax Staternent Details TAXING ENTITY .. ..... TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT " BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $66,580.23 1 -16 -2015 $66,58023 $0.00 Guadalupe County $12,643.41 1 -16- 2015 $12,643.41 $0.00 Lateral Roads $7,76168 1 -16 -2015 $7,76168 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $199,446.21 1 -16 -2015 $199,446.21 $0.00 TOTALS $286,433.53 ........ $286,433.53 ...... $0.00 2013 Tax Statement: Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $83,097.61 1 -30 -2014 $83,097.61 $0.00 Guadalupe County $15,700.00 1 -30 -2014 $15,700.00 $0.00 " Lateral Roads $9,689.71 1 -30 -2014 $9,689.71 $0.00 Sch - cib -uc lad $248,925.32 1-30-2014 $248,925.32 $0.00 TOTALS $357,412.64 $357,412.64 $0.00 2012 Tax S,tateinent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID .... AMOUNT BALANCE DUE .. PAID City Of Schertz $87,922.02 1 -31 -2013 $87,92102 $0.00 Guadalupe County $16,631.54 1- 31- 2013 $16,631.54 $0.00 Lateral Roads $10,201.00 1-31-2013 $10,201,00 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $256,783.68 1- 31- 2013 $256,783.68 $0.00 ......... TOTALS $371,538.24 $371,538.24 $0.00 http:// property .co.guadalupe.tx.us /Property- Detail? PropertyQuickReflD= R663633 &PartyQ... 3/8/201.8 City OfSchexz 0 9,191 AB 0 9,191,333 049 U0O0 45,129.45 Guadalupe n 9.191.333 AB 13 893,500 2.2e7.833 0.326e000 7.511.62 Lateral Roads | o 1 9,191,333 A8 o | 9,191,333 | 0.0530000 | 4,87 .41 i�ll= o To avoid the accrual of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 31. 0 If your tax should be paid by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office. 3 0 View property tax information, e-statements and other payment options such as ACH, escrow, credit is 9,191,333 cards at: property. co-guadalupe , tx us % 100.00 Credit Cards will Mcu r an additional vendor fee, ID 00199128 The person who owned the Business Personal Property (business inventory, equipment, etc)aeof January 1 of the tax year is personally liable for the entire year's amount due, even if the property is sold or the business iaclosed. Property ID: P327932 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES |wC ATTN:ESSH8N310O 3noovwSsMxwBLVD 99 f 99 SAN ANTONIO TX 78251 F] CHANGE oF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION OwBACK _ Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page 1 of 2 Property Owner Property Address 20`17 Assessed Value P327932 CAPITAL. GROUP COMPANIES INC 5700 MID- CITIES PKWY $9,191,333 2017 Details .. ... TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES ........ DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective_ Date: DUE PAID DUE 3(8/2018 City Of Schertz $45,129,45 2-6-2018 $45,129.45 $0.00 Current Amount Due $0.00 Guadalupe County $7,511.62 2 -6 -2018 $7,511,62 $0.00 Lateral Roads $4,871,41 2-6-2018 $4,871.41 $0.00 Past Years Due $0,00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $136,950.86 2-6-2018 $136,950,86 $0.00 TOTALS $194,463,34 $194,463,34 $0.00 Total Due $0.00 ? 201E Tax Statei nent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $56,235.99 1 -26 -2017 $56,235.99 $0.00 Guadalupe County $9,478.59 1-26-2017 $9,47859 $0.00 Lateral Roads $6,183.55 1 -26 -2017 $6,183.55 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $168,330.08 1 -26 -2017 $168,330.08 $0.00 TOTALS $240,228.21 $240,228.21 $0.00 2:015 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE ...... DUE ........ City Of Schertz $56,272.11 1-28-2016 $56,272.11 $0.00 Guadalupe County $9,484.68 1-28-2016 $9,484.68 $0.00 Lateral Roads $6,187.53 1 -28 -2016 $6,187.53 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $170,72937 1 -28 -2016 $170,729.87 $0.00 TOTALS $242,674.19 $242,674.19 $0.00 20914 Tax Statement Detail, TAXING ENTITY .. .... TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID BALANCE DUE. PAIAMOUNT PAID City Of Schertz $74,342.56 1 -16 -2015 $74,34156 $0.00 Guadalupe County $12,558.57 1- 16- 2015 $12,558,57 $0.00 Lateral Roads $8,66831 1 -16 -2015 $8,668.81 $0.00 . Sch - cib -uc Isd $222,698.85 1 -16 -2015 $222,698.85 $0.00 TOTALS .......... $318,268.79 $318,268.79 $0.00 2013 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $103,830.80 1 -30 -2014 $103,830.80 $0.00 Guadalupe County $17,842.65 1 -30 -2014 $17,842.65 $0.00 Lateral Roads $12,10733 1-30-2014 $12,107.33 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc Isd $311,033.15 1 -30 -2014 $311,033.15 $0.00 TOTALS $444,813.93 $444,813.93 $0.00 2012 Tax Statement Details ............... TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID ......... AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $119,616.15 1 -31 -2013 $119,61615 $0.00 Guadalupe County $20,67181 1- 31-2013 $20,67181 $0.00 ' Lateral Roads $13,87825 1-31 -2013 $13,878.25 $0.00 Sch- cib -uc led $349,349.02 1 -31- 2013 $349,349.02 $0.00 TOTALS .... $503,517.23 ........ $503,517.23 $0.00 http:// property .co.guadalupe.tx.us /Property- Detail? PropertyQuickReflD= P327932 &PartyQu... 3/8/201.8 A/I010 to] 710`1 UUV1 City Council Meeting: Department: Subject: Informational Item March 13, 2018 Economic Development Caterpillar's 2017 tax reimbursement according to the Development Agreement History: In October 2010, the City Council approved a Development Agreement among the City of Schertz, Texas, the City of Schertz Economic Development Corporation, and Caterpillar, Inc. ( "Caterpillar ") (the "Agreement "). The Agreement established a performance -based tax incentive for Caterpillar's multi - phased manufacturing facility. In consideration. Caterpillar would be eligible to receive an annual reimbursement of 75% of all taxable personal property for a period of eight years. On January 31, 2018 Caterpillar reported their compliance to the Agreement for the 2017 tax year. In accordance to the Agreement Caterpillar has: Y Constructed at least 400,000 square feet in connection with phase 1 and 2 Y Employed at least 80 full -time employees with a minimum monthly payroll of $300,000. Caterpillar has paid all real and personal property taxes for the 2017 . tax year. A copy of the 2017 . Property Tax Statements are attached for verification. FISCAL IMPACT Caterpillar's 2017 total personal property tax value was $99,178,127 (machinery and equipment $97,679,900 + computer and supplies $1,478,340 + inventory $19,887). According to the Agreement, Caterpillar will receive $365,223.45 which is a 75% tax reimbursement for their taxable personal property. The methodology for the reimbursement is noted below: Y (Total personal property tax value* 2017 Schertz tax rate)/ 100 =total taxes paid* 75% = Caterpillar's 2017 tax reimbursement Y ($99,178,127 * 0.4910 %) / 100 = $486,964.60 * 75% _ $365,223.45 In summary, Caterpillar will receive the 2016 reimbursement of $365,223.45 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has evaluated the Agreement and found that Caterpillar is compliant for the 2017 tax year. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the reimbursement in accordance with the Agreement. ATTACHMENT(S) 2017 Property Tax Statements (R63134, P328580, P329842 and P328571) I PROLOGIS PARK TRI COUNTY, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 8 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78154 I City Of Schertz U Daryl John 99 9 TAX ASS ESSOR-COLLECTOR �. R631343 V3Te }35 CATERPILLAR � t , PROPERTY" TAX STATEMENT for 2017 Phone Number., 830- 370 -2315' 0 t 1 43,587,607 0 43,587,607 0.4910000 214,015.15 Property ID: R631343 .CP E AC 0 RiT4#€ N OR11311�A: JPQ $214,015.15 CATERPILLAR DBA TEXAS MACHINING PROPERTY TAX DEPT 9998999 99 9 f 99 100 NE ADAMS ST PEORIA IL 61629 F] CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION ON BACK Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page 1 of 2 Property Owner Property Address $29.52 20`17 Assessed Value R631343 CATERPILLAR 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78154 $43,587,607 2017 TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAiC} Details $28.74 1 -28 -2010 TAXING ENTITY TOTALTAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective Date: $0.00 DUE I'll I'll PAID DUE 3(8/2018 City Of Schertz $214,015.15 1-29-2018 $214 015.15 $0.00 .......... ..... Current Amount Due $0.00 TOTALS $214,015,15 $214,015.15 $0.00 Past Years Due $0,00 :2016 Tax Statement Details 1 -AXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE Total Due ., DUE ..... PAID ..... ... $0.00 City Of Schertz $171,19619 2-1-2017 $171,196,19 $0.00 TOTALS $171,19619 $171,196.19 $0,00 2015 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $183,179.92 3 -2 -2016 $183,179.92 $0.00 ' TOTALS $183,179.92 $183,179.92 $0.00 20314 Tax Statement Details ._ ......... TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID ....... .... AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $173,592.60 1-26-2015 $173,592.60 $0.00 TOTALS $173,592.60 $173,592.60 $0.00 20313 Tax State =anent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE _. DUE ...... PAIL? ... .. . City Of Schertz $197,872.76 .. 1 -22 -2014 $197,872.76 $0.00 _. TOTALS .._ $197,872,76 $197,872.76 $0.00 2012 Tax Statement Detail TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE .......... PAID City Of Schertz $85,73185 2 -5 -2013 $85,732,85 $0.00 TOTALS $85,732,85 $85.732.85 $0.00 2011 ......... ......... ..... ......... .. .. ......... Tax Statement Details ................ TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE .. PAID City Of Schertz $10,506.79 12 -27 -2011 $10,506.79 $0.00 TOTALS $10,506,79 $10,506.79 $0.00 2010 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAD .. AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $2952 11 -15- 2010 $29.52 $0.00 , TOTALS $29.52 $29.52 $0.00 20309 . Tax Staternent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAiC} City Of Schertz $28.74 1 -28 -2010 $28.74 $0.00 TOTALS $28.74 $28.74 $0.00 http:// property .co.guadalupe.tx.us /Property- Detail? PropertyQuickReflD= R631343 &PartyQ... 3/8/201.8 I momommmmmmm- TAX SSE; COMPUTERS, SUPPLIES & OFFICE EQUIPMENT 6800 DOERR LANE - SCHERTZ 000378805 Al 1 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78154 P328580 CATERPILLAR 7,258.65 0 0 o To avoid the accrual of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 0 If your tax should be pawn by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office; 0 View property tax information, e- staterner is and other parent options such as A H, escrow, credit; 1,478,340 cards at: property.do.guaalupe.t.us 100.00 o Credit Cards will incur an additional vendor fee 00229263 fi trared home accounts accrue April 1st. The person who owned the Business Personal Property (business inventory, equipment, etc.) as of January 1 of the tax year is personally liable for the entire year's amount due, even if the property is sold or the business is closed. Property 1D: P328580 $7,258.65 CATERPILLAR DBA TEXAS MACHINING PROPERTY TAX DEPT 9998999 99 9 f 99 100 NE ADAMS ST PEORIA IL 61629 ❑ CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION ON BACK Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page I of I Property Owner Property Address 2017 Assessed Value P329842 CATERPILLAR 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78154 $9,040,250 2017 IV Details TAXING ENTITY ....................... TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective Date: DUE PAID DUE City Of Schertz $10448 2-21-2018 $104.48 $0.00 . .......... ........ Current Amount Due $0.00 TOTALS $104.48 $104.48 $0.00 Past Years Due $0,00 2016 Tax Staternent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES AMOUNT DATE PAID BALANCE Total Due DUE'll""I'll""I'll,'ll""I'll""II MOB City Of Schertz $61.96 3-21-2017 $61,96 $0,00 ... . ... .............. I TOTALS ..... . . .... $61.96 $61.96 $0.00 2015 Tax Statement Details I TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE NNE PAID City Of Schertz $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2014 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES AMOUNT BALANCE DATE PAID DtJE ... PAID ......................................... . . ...... . . . . . . ....... City Of Schertz $840.65 1-20-2015 $840.65 $0.00 TOTALS $840.65 $840.65 $0.00 2013 Tax Statsnent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE ... . ............... PAID ...................... ........... .... ......... .. City Of Schertz $1,603.87 1-22-2014 $1,603,87 $0.00 TOTALS $1,603.87 $1,60187 $0.00 Payryierit History Expand /Collapse All (D 2017 ........... .. Transaction Date ...... . ...... ............... ............... Payment Arnount Receipt Number .......... 2/21/2018 $104.48 SG-2018-1348140 View ffl 2016 Transaction Date ..... .......... PaymentAmount Receipt Number 3121/2017 $61.96 SG-2017-1265352 View . . ................ .. .... .......... ... ............................... . .................. ..... . . ............... . . .... .... ... (D 2014 Transaction Date ...... ................. ............... ....... . . . . ......... -'-- ............... ..... PaymentAmount Receipt Number ...... ........ ....... . .. . ......... . - ............ ....... ... .. ... . ... ... . ..... . 1/20/2015 . ..... . .. .. .. .. ......... ..................... $840�65 SG-2015-1071496 View .. . . .. .. .. ......... . .......... .. ... ..... .................... ED 2013 w. . . ........................ .. ... ............................... . ................ Transaction Date PaymentAmount Receipt Number . . .......... 1/22/2014 $1,603.87 SG-2014-984469 View DISCLAIMER Every effort has been made to offer the most current and correct information possible on these pages. The information included on these pages has been compiled by County staff from a variety of sources, and is subject to change without notice, The Guadalupe County Tax Office rnakes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, accuracy or adequacy of such information and data. The Guadalupe County Tax Office reserves the right to make changes at any tirne without notice. Original records may differ from the information on these pages, Verification of information on source docurnents is recommended, By rising this application, you assurne all risks arising out of or associated with access to these pages, Including but not linited to risks of damage to your computer, peripherals, software and data from any virus, software, file or other cause associated with access to this application. The Guadalupe County Tax Office shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of any cause relating to use of this application, Including but not limited to mistakes, ornissions, deletions, errors, or defects in any information contained in these pages, or any failure to receive or delay in receiving Information implied, http://property.co.guadalupe.tx.usIProperty-Detail?PropertyQuickReflD=P329842&PartyQu... 3/8/2018 City Of Schertz ` | P329842 CATERPILLAR O 0 * To avoid the accrual of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 31 0 9 If your tax should be paid by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office. 0 a View property tax information, e-statements and other payment options such as ACH, escrow, credit 0 cards at: property. co-guadalupe -tx, us 0 e Credit Cards will incur an additional vendor fee. The person who owned the Business Personal Property (business inventory, equipment, etc)aeof January 1 of the tax year is personally liable for the entire year's amount due, even if the property is sold or the business iaclosed. Property ID: P329842 CATERPILLAR DBA TEXAS MACHINING PROPERTY TAX DEPT ��� 1OOwe ADAMS GT PEORIA |L 61629 F] CHANGE oF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION OwBACK - Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page I of I Property Owner Property Address 2017 Assessed Value P329842 CATERPILLAR 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78154 $9,040,250 2017 IV Details TAXING ENTITY ....................... TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective Date: DUE PAID DUE City Of Schertz $10448 2-21-2018 $104.48 $0.00 . .......... ........ Current Amount Due $0.00 TOTALS $104.48 $104.48 $0.00 Past Years Due $0,00 2016 Tax Staternent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES AMOUNT DATE PAID BALANCE Total Due DUE'll""I'll""I'll,'ll""I'll""II MOB City Of Schertz $61.96 3-21-2017 $61,96 $0,00 ... . ... .............. I TOTALS ..... . . .... $61.96 $61.96 $0.00 2015 Tax Statement Details I TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE NNE PAID City Of Schertz $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2014 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES AMOUNT BALANCE DATE PAID DtJE ... PAID ......................................... . . ...... . . . . . . ....... City Of Schertz $840.65 1-20-2015 $840.65 $0.00 TOTALS $840.65 $840.65 $0.00 2013 Tax Statsnent Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE ... . ............... PAID ...................... ........... .... ......... .. City Of Schertz $1,603.87 1-22-2014 $1,603,87 $0.00 TOTALS $1,603.87 $1,60187 $0.00 Payryierit History Expand /Collapse All (D 2017 ........... .. Transaction Date ...... . ...... ............... ............... Payment Arnount Receipt Number .......... 2/21/2018 $104.48 SG-2018-1348140 View ffl 2016 Transaction Date ..... .......... PaymentAmount Receipt Number 3121/2017 $61.96 SG-2017-1265352 View . . ................ .. .... .......... ... ............................... . .................. ..... . . ............... . . .... .... ... (D 2014 Transaction Date ...... ................. ............... ....... . . . . ......... -'-- ............... ..... PaymentAmount Receipt Number ...... ........ ....... . .. . ......... . - ............ ....... ... .. ... . ... ... . ..... . 1/20/2015 . ..... . .. .. .. .. ......... ..................... $840�65 SG-2015-1071496 View .. . . .. .. .. ......... . .......... .. ... ..... .................... ED 2013 w. . . ........................ .. ... ............................... . ................ Transaction Date PaymentAmount Receipt Number . . .......... 1/22/2014 $1,603.87 SG-2014-984469 View DISCLAIMER Every effort has been made to offer the most current and correct information possible on these pages. The information included on these pages has been compiled by County staff from a variety of sources, and is subject to change without notice, The Guadalupe County Tax Office rnakes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, accuracy or adequacy of such information and data. The Guadalupe County Tax Office reserves the right to make changes at any tirne without notice. Original records may differ from the information on these pages, Verification of information on source docurnents is recommended, By rising this application, you assurne all risks arising out of or associated with access to these pages, Including but not linited to risks of damage to your computer, peripherals, software and data from any virus, software, file or other cause associated with access to this application. The Guadalupe County Tax Office shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of any cause relating to use of this application, Including but not limited to mistakes, ornissions, deletions, errors, or defects in any information contained in these pages, or any failure to receive or delay in receiving Information implied, http://property.co.guadalupe.tx.usIProperty-Detail?PropertyQuickReflD=P329842&PartyQu... 3/8/2018 City Of Schertz ` | P328571 CATERPILLAR O 0 * To avoid the accrua� of penalty and interest your payment must be postmarked on or before January 31. 0 a If your tax should be paid by a mortgage company, please forward this statement to their office. 0 9 View property tax information, e-staternents and other payment options such as ACH, escrow, credit 0 cards at: property. co-guadaIupe,tx. us 0 @ Credit Cards will incur an additiona I vendor fee, tured home accounts ace-rue April lst The person who owned the Business Personal Property (business inventory, equipment, etc)aeof January 1 of the tax year is personally liable for the entire year's amount due, even if the property is sold or the business iaclosed. Property ID: P328571 $479,608.31 CATERPILLAR DBA TEXAS MACHINING PROPERTY TAX DEPT ��� 1OOwe ADAMS GT PEORIA |L 61629 F] CHANGE oF ADDRESS OR OWNERSHIP CORRECTION OwBACK _ Guadalupe County Tax Office > Property Detail Page 1 of 2 Property Owner Property Address 20`17 Assessed Value P328571 CATERPILLAR 6800 DOERR LN SCHERTZ 78164 $97,679,900 2017 Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE TOTAL TAXES Effective Date: 1 DUE PAID DUE 3!8/2018 I �mm City Of Schertz $513,180.89 2-21-2018 $513,180.89 $0.00 Current Amount Dane $0.00 TOTALS $513,180.89 $513,180.89 $0.00 sss Past Years Due $0,00 2016 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE Total Due DUE .... .... PAID ....... $0.00 City Of Schertz $524,12319 2-1-2017 $524,123.19 $0.00 TOTALS $524,12319 $524,123,19 $0.00 2015 Tax Statement: Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES ........ DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $559,735.15 1 -25 -2016 $559,735.15 `0.00 ; TOTALS $559,735.15 $559,735.15 $0.00 2014 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTALTAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE PAID City Of Schertz $610,97158 1 -26 -2015 $610,973.58 $0.00 TOTALS $610,97158 $610,973.58 $0.00 2013 Tax Stat&- neat Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES DATE PAID AMOUNT BALANCE DUE ...... PAID ... City Of Schertz $349,982.56 1 -22 -2014 $349,982.56 $0.00 TOTALS $349,982,56 $349,982,56 $0.00 2012 Tax Statement Details TAXING ENTITY TOTAL TAXES ` DATE PAIL? ,, AMOUNT BALANCE DUE....... PAID... City Of Schertz $104,065,38 3-14 -2013 $104,065.38 $0.00 TOTALS ................ $104.06538 $104.065,38 ..........$0.00 http:// property .co.guadalupe.tx.us /Property- Detail ?PropertyQuickReflD= P328571 &PartyQu... 3/8/201.8